Skip to main content

Full text of "The extraordinary life & trial of Madame Rachel at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London : on the 22 23, 24 & 25, September, 1868 .."

See other formats


ANNttX 


If 


THE    EXTRAORDINARY 

'LIFE    &    TRIAL 

OF 

ADAME  RACHEL 


AT  THE 

JENTRAL   CRIMINAL   COURT, 

OLD  BAILEY,  LONDON, 
THE  22,  23,  24  &  25  SEPTEMBER,  1868, 

BEFORE 

Mil,   COMMISSIONER  KEEli,  IN   THE  NEW  COURT, 

COUNSEL    FOR   THE    PROSECUTION: 

MK.  SERJKANT  BALLANT1XE,  MR.  MONTAGU  WILLIAMS, 
aud  Mr.  STRAIGHT. 

COUNSEL    FOR   THE    DEFENCE: 

W.  DKJBY  SEYMOUR,  Q.(\,  MK.  SKKJEAXT  PARRY,  MK.  Si-lIl.JEAX'l1 
SLI'ilGII,  and  MR.  11IGBY. 


The  Report  copied  verbatim  Jrom  THE  vTiME,s. 


DIl'UOSK  AM,  HATE.MAX,  PBISTKIMJ  1:5  \   17, 
PRICE— ONE  SK1L  L  i 


THE    EXTRAOKDINAKY 

LIFE    &   TRIAL 


OF 


MADAME  RACHEL 

AT   THE 

CENTRAL  CRIMINAL  COURT, 

OLD  BAILEY,  LONDON, 

ON  THE  22,  23,  24  &  25,  SEPTEMBER,  1868, 

BEFORE 

MR,  COMMISSIONER   KERB,  IN  THE  NEW  COURT, 

COUNSEL  FOR  THE  PROSECUTION  : 

MR.  SERJEANT  BALLANTINE,  MB.  MONTAGU  WILLIAMS, 
and  MR.  STRAIGHT. 

COUNSEL   FOR   THE    DEFENCE: 

W.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR,  Q.C.,  MB.  SERJEANT  PARRY,  MB.  SERJEANT 
SLEIGH  and  MB.  RIGBY. 


The  Report  copied  verbatim  from  THE  TIMES. 


1)1  PROSE  AND  BATEMAN,  PRINTERS,  13  &  17,  PORTUGAL  STREET. 
PRICE.— ONE  SHILLING, 


D1PBOSE  AND  BATEMAN,  PBINTERS,  13  &  17,  PORTUGAL  STREET, 
LINCOLN'S  INN  FIELDS. 


THE  LIFE  OF  MAMIE  RACHEL 


Madame  Rachel,  the  subject  of  this  most  extra- 
ordinary trial,  was  born  about  the  year  1806,  her  father's 
name  was  Russell,  he  was  a  man  much  respected  by 
his  neighbours,  being  of  a  very  congenial  turn  of 
mind  and  a  great  humorist.  Miss  Russell  was  first 
married  to  a  Mr.  Jacob  Moses,  who  was  lost  in  the 
ship  "Royal  Charter,"  in  1859,  off  the  Welch  coast,  home- 
ward bound  from  Australia;  and  afterwards  married 
Mr.  Phillip  Levison  or  Leverson  her  present  husband. 
Some  years  since  she  lived  in  the  neighbourhood  of  King's 
College  Hospital,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  and  we  are  given 
to  understand  that  about  the  same  time,  she  and  her 
family  were  stricken  down  by  a  most  fearful  fever,  which 
compelled  her  and  them  to  seek  relief  from  that  Hospital, 
when  it  was  found  necessary  that  her  head  should  be 
shaved.  This  greatly  distressed  her,  for  she  was  very 
proud  of  her  hair,  as  well  she  might  be,  for  her  fine 
flowing  locks  were  truly  beautiful.  The  medical  man, 
to  pacify  her  under  this  severe  loss,  told  her  not  to  mind 
it,  that  he  would  give  her  something  that  should  make 
her  hair  grow  rapidly  and  be  more  beautiful  than  ever. 
When  she  recovered  from  the  fever,  strange  to  say, 
nature  was  so  bountiful  that  her  hair  grew  most  wonder- 
fully fast,  at  which  she  was  so  delighted  that  she  asked 
the  doctor  for  the  receipe,  which  he  gave  her.  And 
now  she,  like  a  worldly  woman,  began  to  think  of  turn- 
ing it  to  account,  and  from  this  trifling  circumstance, 
we  arc  told  she  commenced  coloring  grey  hair,  re 


IV 

moving  wrinkles,  cheating  old  age  out  of  its  rights,  and 
making  women 

"BEAUTIFUL  FOE  EVER" 

In  1863  Madame  Eachel  published  a  pamphlet  of  24 
pages  octavo,  entitled  "  Beautiful  for  Ever,"  a  copy  of 
which  we  have  seen  and  read ;  it  is  an  extraordinary 
literary  performance — a  perfect  curiosity  of  its  kind — 
beating  Rowland  of  old  with  his  Kalydor  in  puffing. 
Herein  she  flatters  women  to  their  heart's  content ;  she 
begins  with  calling  the  fair  "  lovely  as  the  bright  sun- 
shine [at  morning's  dawn;  beautiful  as  the  dew-drops 
on  the  flowers ;  so  beautiful  is  lovely  woman.  Poets 
have  praised  her,  artists  have  portrayed  her,  bards  have 
sung  her  praises.  She  is  the  sculptor's  beau  ideal ; 
volumes  have  been  written  of  her,  volumes  still  are  to 
be  written  of  her !  " 

She  says  "Our  first  mother  of  the  world,  who  claimed 
our  love  and  pity  for  her  beauty  and  sorrow,  was  a 
beautiful  woman.  From  the  beginning  of  the  world 
she  was  the  companion  of  man's  youth,  the  solace  of 
age.  She  is  man's  guiding  star — gentle,  loving  woman, 
who,  by  her  gentle  counsel,  leads  men  to  deeds  of  great- 
ness and  renown." 

After  this  rhapsody  on  woman  she  brings  in  mother 
Eve  by  the  hair  of  her  head,  and  eulogises  her  as  being 
the  most  charming  creature  that  ever  existed  ;  then  she 
introduces  her  Majesty  and  the  Royal  Family  with  the 
most  fulsome  flattery,  and  next  we  find  her  among  the 
Grim  Tartars — the  Sisters  of  Mercy — Florence  Nightin- 
gale— Jessie  Maclean,  the  heroine  of  Lucknow — and 
Grace  Darling,  of  the  Longstone  Lighthouse,  whom 
she  calls  Grace  by  name  and  Grace  by  nature — how 
pretty  and  how  witty — the  poor  ballet  girl  Smith  of  the 
Princess's  Theatre  now  conies  in  for  her  meed  of  praise 
for  sacrificing  her  life  in  trying  to  extinguish  the 
flames  that  enveloped  her  unfortunate  companion.  She 
forgets  not  to  talk  of  frail  and  penitent  woman — led  on 
to  repentance  by  the  beautiful  of  the  beautiful — bright 


faith,  hope  and  charity — and  now  for  a  touch  of  the 
sentimental  from  Othello — "  Nought  extenuate  and 
nought  set  down  in  malice."  After  a  few  words  on  the 
mental  beauties  of  women,  she  goes  on  to  say  "  It  is 
our  pleasing  duty  to  embellish  and  add  to  their  personal 
charms."  Next  comes  the  lovely,  erring  and  repentant 
Magdalen,  and  another  touch  of  the  sentimental,  bor- 
rowed this  time  from  Tom  Hood — 

"  Take  her  up  tenderly, 

Lift  her  with  care  ; 
Fashioned  so  slenderly, 

Young  and  so  fair." 

After  some  more  edifying  matter  she  puts  in 
an  extract,  — taken,  as  she  says,  from  the  Illustrated 
London  News  of  January  24th,  1846, — about  some 
Morocco  doctor  and  his  wonderful  powers,  and  then 
comes  "The  Magnetic  Dew  of  Sahara  and  the  Jordan 
Water"  which  are  both  spoken  of  in  the  Trial,  as  will 
be  found  on  reading  it  through.  The  "  Desert  Water 
or  Liquid  Dew"  she  declares  that  she  has  purchased,  at 
an  enormous  outlay,  from  the  Government  of  Morocco, 
the  exclusive  right  of  using  it ;  and  that  it  has  gained 
for  her,  her  world  renowned  name. 

We  now  come  to  a  dissertation  on  enamelling  the 
face  which  she  says  she  manages  to  achieve,  not  by  using 
dangerous  cosmetics,  but  by  the  use  of  the  Arabian 
Baths,  composed  of  pure  extracts  of  the  liquid  of 
flowers,  choice  and  rare  herbs,  and  other  preparations 
equally  harmless  and  efficacious,  and  tries  to  support  her 
plan  by  Dr.  Jenner's  discovery  of  vaccination  and  Sir 
Hugh  Middleton's  bringing  the  new  river  water  (not 
the  waters  of  the  Jordan)  to  London. 

She  next  informs  us  that  almost  all  Cosmetics  (except 
her  own)  are  composed  of  deadly  leads  and  other  in- 
jurious matters,  but  that  her  preparations  are  made  up 
of  the  purest,  rarest,  and  most  fragrant  productions  of 
the  East — far  beyond  the  confines  of  Wapping.  She 
now,  by  way  of  peroration,  invites  all  ladies  who  have 
become  wall-flowers  to  place  themselves  under  her 
hands,  and  tells  them  plainly  that  she  can  remove  all 


VI 

personal  defects,  put  a  bloom  on  old  visages,  so  as  to 
make  them  look  young  again  as  in  their  youthful  days, 
and  thus  manufacture  antiquated  belles  into  charming 
juveniles — pretty  girls  scarcely  out  of  their  teens.  Such 
is  a  condensed  epitome  of  this  rich  and  rare  pamphlet, 
which  has  for  its  object  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the 
greatest,  wonders  of  the  age,  as  its  title  shows,  for  what 
can  be  more  wonderful  than  to  make  woman 

"BEAUTIFUL  FOR  EVER." 

We  will  now  give  a  brief  list  of  Madame  Rachel's 
cosmetics,  &c.,  and  their  remarkably  low  charges  :— 

WASHES  FOE  THE   COMPLEXION. 

£  s.  d. 

Circassian  Beauty  "Wash  ...  ...  ...  110 

Armenian  Liquid  for  removing  Wrinkles  ...  ...  ...  110 

Sultana's  Beauty  Wash  ...  110 

Blauchinette  Wash  110 

Magnetic  Rock  Dew  Water  of  Sahara,  for  removing 

Wrinkles^  220 

Liquid  Flowers  and  Herbs  for  the  Bath  ...  ...  ...  110 

Pure  Extracts  of  the  China  Eose 110 

Alabaster  Liquid  ...  ...  ...  ...  110 

Do  Lentla  Wash  110 

Soothing  Balms,  for  removing  Irritation  and  Ecdncss 

from  the  Skin 110 

POWDEES  FOE  THE  COMPLEXION. 

Arab  Bloom  Powder            110 

Favorite  of  the  Harem's  Pearl  White      110 

Albanian  Powder     ...          ...          ...          ...          ...          ...  110 

Disinfecting  Powder,  of  the  choicest  Arabian  odours     ...  05     G 

Prepared  Sponge,  for  the  Complexion      ...          ...          ...  056 

Indian  Coal,  for  the  Eyes 220 

Chinese  Leaves  for  the  cheeks  and  lips     ...          110 

Youth  and  Beauty  Bloom 220 

Circassian  Powder  for  the  hands  and  nails           220 

DENTEIFICES  AND  MOUTH  WASHES. 

Teeth  Enamel           110 

Arabian  Perfume  Wash      • 220 

Pearly  Tooth  Powder           110 

Balmy  Eeed  Powder            110 


Vll 

HAIE  PEEPAEATION. 

Circassian  Golden  Hair  Wash ••«  •••  220 

Madagascar,  Arabian,  Circassian,  and  Armenian  Oils    ...  220 

Preservative  Cream ...         ...         ...         ...         ...         ...  220 

Medicated  Cream  for  rendering  the  hair  black  or  chesnut 

brown ...  220 

Astringents  and  stimulents^for  rendering  the  hair  Italian 

brown 220 

CEEAMS  FOB  THE  FACE. 

Lily  Cream  ..         ...         220 

Sweet  Jasmine  Cream 

Eugenie's  Cream  220 

Alexandra  Cream  220 

Youth  and  Beauty  Cream 220 

Eoyal  Arabian  Cream         220 

Senses  of  Peace        220 

Arabian,  Circassian,  and  American  Oils  for  the  Hair,  and 

Incense  220 

Eoseate  Unguent 220 

Eoyal  Bath  Preparations  ...         220 

The  Eoyal  Arabian  Toilet  of  Beauty  as  arranged  by 
Madame  Rachel  for  the  Sultana  of  Turkey,  the  fac- 
simile of  which  is  used  by  the  Eoyal  European 
Brides,  from  100  to  1,000  guineas 

EOTAL  AEABIAN   SOAP. 

Eoyal  Nursery  Soap  220 

Victoria  Soap  220 

Alexandra  Soap         220 

Honey  of  Mount  Hymettus  Soap 220 

Peach  Blossom  Soap  220 

Alabaster  Soap         220 

Herb  Soaps  for  removing  Wrinkles  ...         220 

Eoyal  Bridal  Bath  Soap      220 

Albanian  Soap          220 

Pure  Extracts  of  Herbs  for  Preserving  and  Enhancing 

the  Skin  220 


PERFUMES. 

Sultana's  Bouquets  ...         ...  110 

Favourite  of  the  Harem's  Bouquet          ...         ...         ...  110 

Fragrance  of  the  Sweetest  Flowers          ...         ...         ...  220 

Vinegars  for  the  Sick  Eoom  110 

Arabian  Fumigated  Oils      220 


Vlll 

Bridal  Toilet  Cabinets,  arranged  from  25  to  200  guineas. 

Wardrobe  and  Jewel-case  Odour  ...         ...  550 

Souvenir  de  Marriage  from  25  to  100  guineas. 

Betrothal  Presents 550 

Maiden's  Keepsake 2     2     0 

Aromatic  G-um  (per  ounce)  0  10    0 

Pure  Oil  of  Myrrh 1     1    0 

Egyptian  Kohl 5    5    0 

Jordan  Water  (per  bottle),  10  to  20  guineas. 
Venus's  Toilet,  10  to  20  guineas. 

Such  is  Madame  Kachel's  theory  and  remedies  for  the 
restoration  and  preservation  of  female  loveliness. 


THE 

TEIAL  OF  MADAME  EACHEL 

BEFOKE   MR.    COMMISSIONER   KERR, 

IN    THE    NEW   COURT, 

TUESDAY,    SEPTEMBER    22,    18B8. 

And  three  following  days. 


Sarah  Rachel  Leveison,  43,  better  known  as  Madame 
Rachel,  was  again  placed  upon  her  trial  for  having  un- 
lawfully obtained  from  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile  the  sum 
of  £1,400  by  means  of  false  and  fraudulent  pretences. 

Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine,  Mr.  Montagu  Williams  and 
Mr.  Straight  again  appeared  for  the  prosecution;  Mr. 
Digby  Seymour,  Q.C.,  Mr.  Serjeant  Parry,  Mr.  Serjeant 
Sleigh,  and  Mr.  Butler  Rigby  were  counsel  for  the 
defendant. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  consequence  of  the 
jury  having  failed  to  return  a  verdict  upon  the  last 
occasion  they  were  discharged,  and  the  defendant  was 
now  again  put  upon  her  trial.  She  appeared  to  be  very 
weak  and  ill,  and  was  allowed  to  sit  during  the  day. 

The  Court  was  crowded,  but  not  inconveniently  so. 
Lord  Ranelagh  occupied  a  seat  on  one  of  the  side 
benches. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE,  in  opening  the  case,  said  it 
would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  what  had  occurred  in 
reference  to  the  prosecution  was  unknown  to  the  jury, 
because  it  had  occupied  a  great  deal  of  public  attention, 
many  comments  had  been  made  upon  it  in  the  press, 
and  in  all  probability  the  jury  themselves  had  formed 
such  views  upon  it  as  in  their  judgment  seemed  correct. 

B 


To  ask  them,  then,  to  dismiss  all  knowledge  of  the 
matter  from  their  attention  would  be  useless,  but  this 
he  might  ask  them,  and  ask  them  with  the  most  perfect 
confidence,  too — namely,  to  pay  the  fullest  attention  to 
the  evidence  which  would  be  adduced  in  the  progress 
of  the  trial,  and  not  to  assume  that  they  were  already 
acquainted  with  the  whole  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  And 
he  was  the  more  anxious  to  say  this  at  the  outset  be- 
cause there  were  some  small  points  to  which  he  would 
have  to  draw  their  particular  attention — points  which 
had  not  hitherto  been  considered,  matters  that  might 
probably  have  great  weight  on  their  minds  in  guiding 
them  to  a  decision.  The  case  was  one  of  the  most  ex- 
traordinary which  had  ever  been  brought  into  a  court  of 
justice — not  that  it  involved  a  great  catastrophe  or  a  grave 
crime,  but  that  it  was  one  of  such  a  remarkable  nature  as 
to  require  their  minds  to  be  applied  to  every  part  of  it  in 
a  manner  the  most  assiduous.  The  main  prosecutrix  was 
a  Mrs.  Borradaile,  a  lady  whose  late  husband  had  been 
an  officer  of  distinction  serving  in  India.  She  was, 
moreover,  the  daughter  of  an  officer,  so  that  she  might 
be  said  to  be  a  person  of  the  highest  respectability.  As 
an  officer's  widow,  she  was  entitled  to  the  receipt  of  a 
comparatively  small  pension,  besides  which  she  had  a 
sum  of  money  amounting  to  between  £3,000  and  £4,000, 
part  of  which  was  in  the  funds,  and  the  other  part  was 
sunk  in  an  estate ;  in  addition  she  had  some  jewellery, 
clothes,  and  other  property,  so  that,  in  all  probability, 
at  the  time  of  the  particular  transactions  in  question  she 
was  worth  somewhere  about  £5,000.  With  respect  to  the 
defendant,  her  name  was  Sarah  Eachel  Leverson,  but 
she  was  more  generally  known  as  Madame  Sarah 
Kachel,  and  tolerably  well  known,  too,  as  a  person  who 
has  a  shop  in  New  Bond-street,  with  a  considerable  dis- 
play of  powders  and  soaps  for  sale.  She  professed  in 
her  advertisements  to  be  able  to  do  divers  incredible 
things,  probably  things  which  were  not  very  likely  to 
deceive  persons  with  strong,  cultivated  minds,  but  which 
were  not  unlikely  to  deceive  those  to  whom  those  ad- 


vertisements  were  specially  addressed.  The  character 
of  those  advertisements  was  confined  to  the  fair  sex, 
professing  to  make  them  "  beautiful  for  ever,"  whether 
they  were  old  or  young,  by  means  of  powders  and  other 
stuff  from  Arabia.  This  was  the  miraculous  effect  they 
were  to  have  on  the  faces  of  the  ladies, — this  was  the 
description  she  gave  in  her  advertisements.  Now  Mrs. 
Borradaile,  unfortunately  for  her,  had  been,  no  doubt  a 
handsome  woman  in  her  more  youthful  days,  and  was 
still  anxious  to  continue  so ;  and  she,  seeing  advertise- 
ments of  this  promising  description,  was  introduced  to 
Madame  Rachel.  The  first  introduction  was  early  in 
1864  or  1865.  There  was  nothing  then  purchased,  but 
subsequent  interviews  enabled  Madame  Rachel  to  obtain 
an  insight  into  her  character  which  induced  her  to  work 
upon  her  feelings  afterwards  in  a  manner  almost  mirac- 
ulous. From  this  insight,  for  instance,  she  learnt  that 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  possessed  of  the  amount  of  money 
already  mentioned.  In  18G6  Mrs.  Borradaile  called  on 
her  again,  and  made  some  purchases,  and  then  Madame 
Rachel  suggested  a  mode  by  which  she  could  be  made 
"  beautiful  for  ever,"  asking  for  £1,000  for  making  her  so. 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  not  unwilling  to  be  made  "  beautiful, 
for  ever,"  but  as  she  did  not  like  to  part  with  the  £1,000,  a 
remarkable  element  was  brought  to  bear  upon  her. 
Madame  Rachel  said  she  had  been  seen  by  a  nobleman 
who  had  become  enamoured  of  her.  Mrs.  Borradaile 
was  naturally  surprised,  but  glad  to  find  that  a  nobleman 
had  taken  a  liking  to  her.  Madame  Rachel  told  her  the 
nobleman  was  Lord  Ranelagh — a  nobleman  well  known 
and  that  she  would  introduce  her  to  him  ;  and  accor- 
dingly, before  any  of  the  transactions  occurred  which 
formed  the  subject  matter  of  this  indictment,  Lord 
Ranelagh  was  one  day  talking  to  two  ladies  in  Madame 
Rachel's  shop,  one  of  these  being  Miss  Rachel  (the 
prisoner's  daughter),  and  the  other  a  lady  whose  name 
he  (the  learned  Serjeant)  did  not  like  to  mention  now, 
though  it  had  come  out  on  the  last  occasion,  and  then 
and  there  Madame  Rachel  introduced  Mrs.  Borradaile 

B  2 


to  that  nobleman.  Upon  that  interview  the  whole  pivot 
of  this  case  turned  ;  and,  therefore,  he  entreated  the 
jury  to  look  well  to  what  occurred  at  it.  That  there 
would  be  a  discrepancy  in  the  evidence  as  to  what  then 
occurred  might  at  once  be  admitted.  Mrs.  Borradaile 
would  tell  them  that  she  then  entertained  some  doubt 
that  the  person  to  whom  she  was  introduced  was  Lord 
Ranelagh,  whereupon  he  put  his  hand  in  his  pocket,  took 
out  a  card,  and  handed  it  to  her ;  and  then  she  would 
add  that  she  read  his  name  upon  that  card.  It  would 
be  denied  that  any  card  was  handed  to  her  by  his 
lordship  at  that  time.  His  learned  friend  (Mr.  Digby 
Seymour)  had  said  upon  the  last  occasion  that  it  was 
not  consistent  with  the  ordinary  habits  of  society  for  a 
nobleman  to  hand  his  card  under  such  circumstances. 
He  (Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine)  agreed  with  his  learned 
friend  in  that  respect,  and  admitted  candidly  that  it  was 
extraordinary  and  unusual  to  do  so ;  but  then  was  it 
not  equally  extraordinary  and  unusual  for  a  nobleman 
like  Lord  Banelagh  to  be  introduced  under  such  circum- 
stances ?  In  point  of  fact,  the  whole  interview  was 
extraordinary,  but  then  the  jury  would  have  to  say — not 
what  it  was — but  whether  or  not  they  credited  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  It  was  quite  evident  that  Lord  Kanelagh 
might  forget  that  he  handed  his  card,  but  then  it  was 
most  probable  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  would  not  forget  a 
fact  which  which  to  her  was  so  important.  This  brought 
him  to  a  matter  upon  which  he  thought  it  right  at  once 
to  state  the  views  of  the  prosecution.  He  asked  them 
to  believe  Mrs.  Borradaile  upon  the  ground  that  she  had 
been  a  virtuous  wife,  and  since  her  husband's  death  a 
virtuous  widow,  and  that  the  slightest  stain  or  slur  could 
not  be  cast  upon  her.  It  was  true  that  charges  against 
her  had  been  whispered,  but  he  challenged  his  learned 
friend  to  show  that  she  had  clone  anything  on  any  single 
occasion  contrary  to  the  principles  of  honour,  integrity, 
or  truth.  If,  then,  she  was  telling  that  which  was 
untrue,  she  was  running  the  fearful  risk  of  being  indicted 
for  perjury,  because  she  alleged  that  the  card  was  given 


to  her  in  the  presence  of  two  ladies,  one  of  them  the 
daughter  of  the  prisoner.  If  the  assertion  was  a  fabrica- 
tion on  her  part,  the  daughter  could  come  forward  on 
the  mother's  side  and  contradict  it.  But  there  were 
other  facts.  On  another  occasion  Lord  Ranelagh  was 
pointed  out  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  in  Madame  Eachel's 
shop,  and  upon  a  third  occasion  there  was  something 
said  between  his  lordship  and  the  prosecutrix  touching 
theatricals  at  Beaufort  House.  These  were  the  only 
occasions  upon  which  his  lordship  seemed  to  have  ap- 
peared upon  the  scene.  Mrs.  Borradaile  at  this  time 
became  perfectly  satisfied  that  Madame  Rachel  had  told 
her  the  truth,  that  her  beauty  had  attracted  Lord 
Kanelagh,  and  that  his  lordship  had  intimated  from 
time  to  time  that  he  had  never  seen  any  woman  besides 
Mrs.  Borradaile  who  would  be  such  an  honor  and  credit 
to  hisname.  Itnowbecame  important  thatMrs  Borradaile 
should  be  acted  upon  so  as  to  produce  her  money. 
From  the  first  occasion,  when  she  had  been  told  that 
she  could  be  made  "beautiful  for  ever,"  and  that  if  so 
made  Lord  Ranelagh  would  marry  her,  her  mind  began 
to  work.  £200  had  then  been  paid  by  her,  but  £1 ,000  was 
asked  to  make  her  "beautiful  for  ever,"  and  to  raise  the 
necessary  funds  Madame  Rachel  introduced  her  to  a 
solicitor  named  Haynes,  of  St.  James'-street,  who  met 
her  at  a  stockbroker's  in  the  city  and  sold  out  £1,460 
worth  of  her  stock  for  £980,  £800  of  which  found  its 
way  into  Madame  Rachel's  hands,  and  for  this  the 
paltry  equivalent  given  consisted  of  some  powders  and 
soap.  Lord  Ranelagh  was  supposed  to  have  written  a 
variety  of  letters  with  the  view  of  enabling  Madame 
Rachel  to  carry  out  this  fraud  ;  and  if  it  could  be 
proved  that  his  lordship  was  held  out,  not  as  the  whole 
of  the  false  pretences,  but  as  a  false  pretence,  to  effect 
this  fraud,  that  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  sustain  the 
present  indictment.  It  was  true  there  was  no  pretence 
for  supposing  that  his  lordship  had  written  any  of  the 
letters,  for,  independently  of  there  being  no  proof  that 
he  was  the  writer  of  them,  the  letters  themselves  showed 


8 

upon  the  face  of  them  that  they  were  not  the  productions 
of  an  educated  man.  The  first  letter  was  very  warmly 
penned,  and  it  was  signed  "William" — a  fictitious  name 
by  which  it  was  said  Lord  Ranelagh  wished  to  be  known 
throughout  the  transactions.  (The  letters  were  here  al- 
luded to  at  some  length,  and  some  of  them  created 
much  laughter,  but,  as  they  were  inserted  in  extenso  in 
the  Times  on  the  last  occasion,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
introduce  them  now.)  The  learned  counsel  continued 
to  state  that  Madame  Rachel  never  ceased  to  act  upon 
the  unfortunate  Mrs.  Borradaile  until  the  whole  of  her 
property,  amounting  to  £5,300,  was  engulfed,  including 
the  mortgage  of  her  pension.  Clothes,  plate,  jewels, 
pension — all  were  gone,  and  she  was  literally  penniless, 
except  what  she  might  get  in  future  from  the  bounty  of 
her  friends.  Even  then  Madame  Rachel  was  not  satis- 
fied. Lord  Ranelagh's  name  was  again  introduced. 
Two  or  three  scandalous  stories  were  invented  about 
his  lordship  having  seen  her  in  a  bath,  and  about  his 
having  been  intimate  with  her  on  a  former  occasion. 
Madame  Rachel  was  determined  that  so  long  as  there 
were  clothes  on  her  back,  or  money  at  her  command,  or 
the  possibility  of  raising  it,  not  a  fraction,  either  in  esse 
or  in  prospective,  should  belong  to  her.  Accordingly 
she  suggested  to  her  the  propriety  of  executing  a  bond, 
and  a  bond  she  actually  executed  in  favor  of  Rachel  for 
a  further  sum  of  £1,600.  In  the  short  space  of  three 
months  she  had  been  swindled  out  of  £5,300,  and  now 
she  caused  a  bond,  which  she  was  very  unlikely  to  pay, 
to  be  suspended  over  her  head.  But  now  the  climax 
was  arriving.  There  was  nothing  more  to  be  got  out  of 
her.  She  stood  in  her  clothes.  The  money  and  stock 
were  gone.  All  was  swallowed  up.  Then  it  was  that 
an  application  was  sworn  by  Rachel,  upon  which  she 
was  thrown  into  prison,  from  which  she  was  released  by 
virtually  handing  over  her  pension  to  Rachel  for  the  re- 
mainder of  her  life.  In  the  whole  category  of  human 
wickedness  and  human  folly  the  equal  of  this  story  was 
undiscoverable.  He  believed  the  defence  was,  not  that 


every  half-penny  of  the  money,  together  with  the  bond, 
did  not  come  into  the  possession  of  Rachel,  but  that  neither 
the  money  nor  the  bond  was  obtained  by  means  of  false 
pretences.  The  defence  was  that  it  was  obtained  because 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  a  woman  of  loose  habits,  who  was 
willing  to  prostitute  herself,  who  had  carried  on  an  inter- 
course for  months  with  a  man,  and  that  the  sums  of 
money  handed  to  Rachel  were  so  handed  to  her  for  the 
purpose  of  being  used  in  some  way  by  the  person  calling 
himself  '-'William."  This  was  the  defence  the  last 
time,  and  it  would  most  probably  be  the  defence  now  ; 
at  all  events,  if  it  were  not  the  defence  now,  it  was 
impossible  to  know  what  the  defence  would  be.  This 
presented  the  prisoner  in  this,  position — as  a  person 
allowing  her  house  to  be  used  for  interviews  between 
ladies  and  gentlemen,  and  herself  promoting  those  in- 
terviews by  all  the  means  in  her  power,  and  sharing 
with  one  of  the  persons  carrying  on  the  interviews  the 
profits  of  the  transaction.  There  were  certainly  places 
of  that  kind  in  London,  but  then  the  bulk  of  them  all 
was  called  by  a  less  savoury  name  than  that  of  a  "  per- 
fumer's shop." 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  here  complained  that  the  learned 
Serjeant  was  entirely  mistaking  the  grounds  of  the  de 
fence. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  said  that  whatever  the  de- 
fence might  be,  on  this  he  would  take  his  stand — that 
no  such  person  as  "  William  "  existed,  or  ever  did  exist  ; 
that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  never  departed  from  honour  ; 
that  she  had  never  carried  on  any  intrigue  with  any 
person  on  the  broad  surface  of  London ;  and  that,  on 
her  solemn  oath,  she  would  state  that  the  whole  thing 
was  a  wicked  fabrication.  If  there  was  a  real  "  Wil- 
liam " — not  a  myth  and  a  fiction — why  did  not  Madame 
Rachel  give  some  evidence  respecting  him  ?  If  he  was 
a  real  "  William"  he  must  have  been  a  William  in  the 
flesh,  and  then  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for 
all  the  letters  to  have  been  written.  Besides,  why  should 
he  have  allowed  Mrs.  Borradaile's  money  to  filter  through 


10 

Madame  Rachel's  hands  ?  The  jury  would  bear  in  mind 
that  the  letters  had  been  written  in  three  different  hand- 
writings, and  that  from  the  evidence  of  a  lad  who  wrote 
one  of  them  there  was  some  proof  to  shew  that  "  Wil- 
liam "  was  the  concoction  of  Madame  Rachel's  brain. 
They  would  also  bear  in  mind  that  if  Madame  Rachel 
should  now  be  convicted  Mrs.  Borradaile  would  in  no 
way  be  bettered,  but  that  she  would  still  remain  the 
beggared  widow  of  an  Indian  officer.  The  learned  ser- 
jeant  concluded  by  expressing  a  hope  that  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  would  be  found  effectual  in  the  future  in  throw- 
ing the  shield  of  the  law  round  the  many,  many  weak 
women  who  in  this  great  metropolis  were  duped  by  the 
cunning  of  the  artful  and  the  deceptive. 

After  keeping  the  Court  waiting  for  about  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour, 

Mrs.  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile,  the  prosecutrix,  entered 
the  witness-box  and  was  sworn.  She  said,  in  reply  to 
questions  put  by  Mr.  MONTAGU  WILLIAMS, — In  1864 
I  first  went  to  the  prisoner's  shop.  I  am  the  widow  of 
an  officer,  and  was  six  years  with  him, in  India.  I  spent 
£170  with  the  prisoner  in  1864  and  1865,  and  only  got 
for  it  some  soap  and  powder.  In  May,  1866,  she  asked 
me  to  spend  some  more  money  with  her,  but  I  told  her 
I  expected  her  to  do  something  for  my  skin  for  the  £170 
I  had  already  laid  out  at  her  shop.  She  told  me  to  call 
again,  and  when  I  did  so  she  said  Lord  Ranelagh  had 
taken  a  liking  to  me.  I  asked  where  he  had  seen  me. 
She  said  he  had  seen  me  several  times,  both  before  and 
after  my  marriage,  and  that  he  was  a  very  good  man. 
When  I  called  again  Lord  Ranelagh  was  present.  Miss 
Rachel  and  Madame  Valeria  were  both  in  the  shop 
with  Lord  Ranelagh.  Madame  Rachel  was  in  the  little 
sitting-room,  and  I  went  in  and  sat  with  her,  the  door 
being  shut.  She  said  to  me,  "  I  will  now  introduce  you 
to  the  man  that  loves  you,"  and  upon  that  she  opened 
the  door  and  introduced  me  to  Lord  Ranelagh.  She 
said,  "  This  is  Lord  Ranelagh."  I  saw  Lord  Ranelagh 
at  the  last  trial,  and  he  was  the  nobleman  who  was  then 


11 

introduced  to  me.  I  see  him  now  in  court.  I  said  at 
the  time  of  the  introduction,  "  Are  you  Lord  Ranelagh  ?" 
He  said,  "  I  am,"  and  he  handed  me  his  card.  I  am  quite 
certain  he  handed  me  his  card.  Madame  Valeria  must 
have  seen  the  card.  When  I  had  read  it  I  handed  it  back 
to  his  lordship,  and  returned  to  the  sitting-room,  where 
Madame  Rachel  said  he  would  make  me  a  very  good 
husband.  Two  days  afterwards  I  saw  Lord  Ranelagh 
again.  Madame  Rachel  then  asked  me  to  take  a  bath, 
and  I  did  so.  There  was  some  talk  after  the  bath  about 
going  to  the  Beaufort-house  theatricals,  but  Lord 
Ranelagh  said  they  were  not  good  enough  for  me. 
Shortly  afterwards  Madame  Rachel  asked  me  to  be 
made  beautiful  for  ever,  in  order  that  I  might  be  made 
the  suitable  wife  of  Lord  Ranelagh.  I  thought  £1,000 
a  large  sum  of  money,  and  she  said  Mr.  Haynes,  an 
attorney,  who  was  not  a  friend  of  hers,  would  sell  out 
£1,300  of  stock  I  held.  I  went  with  Mr.  Haynes  and 
Madame  Rachel  to  the  city  and  sold  out  the  £1,300 
stock  for  £980,  £20  of  which  went  in  costs.  No  part 
of  that  £960  was  ever  handed  over  to  me  afterwards. 
Mr.  Haynes  brought  me  an  order,  which  I  signed,  and 
by  that  order  the  whole  of  the  £960  was  authorised  by 
me  to  be  handed  over  to  Madame  Rachel.  A  receipt 
for  £800,  stated  to  be  the  balance  of  £1,000,  was  given 
me,  which  purported  to  be  for  a  supply  of  cosmetics, 
bath  preparations,  attendance,  and  enamelling,  to  be 
continued  until  I  should  be  finished  by  the  process.  (A 
laugh.)  I  only  got  some  soap  and  powders  for  my 
money.  I  dare  say  J  had  100  of  the  baths.  (Laughter.) 
None  of  the  powders  were  put  into  the  baths.  The 
powders  were  said  to  have  come  from  Arabia.  Madame 
Rachel  said  I  was  to  be  married  by  proxy,  and  that  the 
courtship  was  to  be  conducted  by  letter.  About  a 
fortnight  after  I  paid  the  money  I  began  to  receive  the 
letters.  Madame  Rachel  always  told  me  that  the  letters 
which  were  signed  "  William "  had  come  from  Lord 
Ranelagh.  The  letters  never  came  to  me  through  the 
post.  They  were  always  given  to  me  by  the  prisoner. 


12 

The  handful  of  letters  which  were  produced  on  the  last 
occasion  were  written  by  me,  as  I  thought,  to  Lord 
Ranelagh,  and  they  were  given  by  me  to  Madame 
Rachel  upon  the  understanding  that  she  would  give  them 
to  his  lordship.  All  the  letters  I  wrote  to  him  were 
dictated  to  me  by  Madame  Rachel,  who  always  said 
they  would  be  delivered  by  her  to  him.  When  I  com- 
plained to  her  about  the  bad  spelling  of  some  of  his 
lordship's  letters  she  accounted  for  it  by  saying  that  he 
had  injured  his  arm  and  had  to  employ  an  uneducated 
amanuensis.  Mention  was  -made  in  one  letter  about 
Belgium,  and  she  explained  that  by  saying  his  lordship 
was  going  there  on  business  connected  with  the  Volun- 
teers. I  bought  £400  worth  of  lace,  and  paid  for  it. 
That  was  to  be  part  of  my  trousseau  but  I  never 
received  a  yard  of  it.  It  found  its  way  into  Madame 
Rachel's  hands,  but  where  it  got  to  afterwards  she  never 
told  me,  and  I  never  could  find  out.  The  allusion  in  one 
of  the  letters  about  the  lace  had  reference  to  its  being 
redeemed  from  a  pawnbroker  in  the  Strand.  I  received 
a  great  many  other  letters  from  Madame  Rachel  pur- 
porting to  come  from  the  same  source,  but  I  always  re- 
turned them  to  her.  In  July  or  August  we  had  a 
conversation  about  diamonds.  Madame  Rachel  said 
that  I  should  want  some  for  the  wedding,  and  a  necklace 
and  coronet  were  ordered  of  Mr.  Pike  accordingly. 
When  the  jewels  were  brought  to  her  house  Madame 
Rachel  put  them  on  me  and  asked  me  how  I  liked  them. 
The  price  of  them  was  £1,260.  I  had  no  money  at  this 
time,  but  had  property,  of  which  Madame  Rachel 
knew.  In  consequence  of  what  was  then  said  I 
went  to  Mr.  Haynes,  the  solicitor,  and  consulted  him 
about  selling  the  property.  It  was  sold  for  £1,540,  and 
I  gave  him  an  order  for  £1,400  to  pay  for  the  diamonds, 
&c.  The  order  produced  was  written  on  the  suggestion 
of  Madame  Rachel,  and  in  her  shop.  I  never  received 
the  diamonds.  I  asked  her  what  had  become  of  the 
money.  She  said  that  it  was  required  for  "  William,"  and 
I  think  she  added  for  the  purposes  of  the  Volunteers.  I 


13 

paid  her  on  one  occasion  £32  for  ornaments  for  the  hair 
which  I  never  received.  She  had  other  money  from  me 
at  times,  which  she  said  was  for  Lord  Kanelagh.  She 
said  a  great  many  things  would  be  required  for  my 
trousseau.  I  paid  £160  to  the  Messrs.  Hamilton,  of 
Conduit-street,  for  dresses  and  clothing  which  I  never 
saw.  They  were  left  at  Madame  Rachel's.  I  remember 
a  Mr.  Proctor,  a  linendraper,  coming  there  in  July, 
1866,  with  a  quantity  of  ladies'  wearing  apparel,  the 
price  of  which  was  also  about  £160.  I  never  got  one 
of  the  articles  myself.  I  often  asked  her  where  they 
had  gone  to,  and  Madame  Rachel's  answer?  were  that 
"  Dear  William "  had  them.  I  remember  Madame 
Rachel  taking  me  to  a  carriage-builder's  in  New  Bond- 
street  for  the  purpose  of  selecting  a  carriage  for  the 
wedding.  She  got  into  one  and  said  she  thought  that 
would  do.  It  was  to  have  Lord  Ranelagh's  arms 
painted  upon  it.  She  afterwards  took  me  to  see  a 
house  which  she  said  was  for  me  and  Lord  Ranelagh. 
I  approved  it,  thinking  it  a  nice  place  for  two  people. 
I  had  a  quantity  of  plate,  which  belonged  to  my  late 
husband,  and  a  silver  tea  service  which  I  purchased  in 
Bond-street.  It  was  taken  away  from  my  lodgings. 
Madame  Rachel  said  it  was  not  such  as  was  suited  for 
me.  She  thought,  from  what  I  had  said  about  it,  that 
it  was  much  better.  She  said  that  all  the  things  were 
to  be  put  away  together  for  the  wedding.  I  had  rings 
and  jewellery,  which  she  obtained  in  the  same  manner, 
and  also  my  marriage  settlement.  I  have  seen  none  of 
this  property  since.  There  were  some  family  seals  and 
other  things,  as  well  as  letters  of  my  late  husband's, 
which  Madame  Rachel  obtained  and  packed  up,  as  she 
said,  for  the  wedding.  On  several  occasions  she  gave 
me  a  cigar.  I  recollect  her  giving  me  one  in  February 
of  this  year.  It  was  lighted,  and  as  she  gave  it  to  me 
she  said,  "  Here  comes  Lord  Ranelagh."  I  saw  a 
person  pass  out  of  the  door  at  the  time,  but  I  could  not 
see  his  face.  Madame  Rachel  said  the  cigar  was  as 
warm  as  his  love.  (A  laugh.)  In  December  I  exe- 


14 

cuted  a  bond  to  Madame  Kachel  for  £1,600.  She  had 
got  me  to  sign  I  O  U's  previously,  and  those  were 
destroyed  on  the  bond  being  given  instead.  I  have  not 
seen  the  bond  since.  She  always  spoke  of  what  she 
was  going  to  do  for  me  with  the  money.  I  was  arrested 
about  this  time,  and  taken  to  the  prison  in  Whitecross- 
street,  at  the  instance  of  the  prisoner.  She  came  to  see 
me  while  I  was  confined  there,  and  remained  with  me 
on  one  occasion  nearly  the  whole  of  the  day.  I  was 
induced  while  there  to  execute  another  document,  as 
she  said  I  could  not  get  out  unless  I  signed.  I  was 
liberated,  but  was  again  arrested  while  Madame  Kachel 
was  under  remand  from  the  police-court  in  Marl- 
borough-street.  It  was  for  £15  for  goods  which  had 
been  ordered  by  Madame  Rachel,  but  which  I  never  saw. 
I  never  knew  or  conversed  with  any  other  "  William  " 
except  the  person  who  was  introduced  to  me  by  Madame 
Kachel.  I  never  had  any  intercourse  with  any  person 
either  at  Cheltenham  or  elsewhere.  I  remember  a  man 
named  Stephens  and  another,  who  Madame  Kachel  said 
were  Lord  Kanelagh's  servants.  She  told  me  his  lord- 
ship had  said  in  their  presence  that  he  intended  to 
marry  me.  She  afterwards  said  that  the  diamonds  I  had 
purchased  would  not  be  wanted  for  the  wedding,  but 
that  there  was  a  coronet  belonging  to  Lord  Kanelagh's 
mother  which  would  answer  the  purpose,  if  the  stones 
were  reset.  I  parted  with  the  whole  of  my  money  and 
jewellery,  together  with  the  bond  and  valuable  securities, 
solely  on  the  representations  made  to  me  by  Madame 
Kachel. 

On  the  conclusion  of  Mrs.  Borradaile's  evidence,  a 
number  of  letters  were  handed  to  her  for  the  purposes 
of  identification.  She  hesitated  considerably  before  she 
answered  the  questions  put  to  her  by  Mr.  Digby 
Seymour  for  the  defence,  and  said  that  some  of  the 
letters  were  like  her  handwriting,  but  she  could  not 
swear  to  them  positively.  She  never  wrote  a  letter 
except  on  the  suggestion  of  Madame  Kachel.  Madame 
Kachel  had  great  influence  over  her,  and  she  always 
trusted  her. 


15 


At  this  stage  the  trial  was  adjourned  till  this  (Tues- 
day) morning. 


At  the  opening  of  the  court  this  morning  the  trial, 
begun  yesterday,  of  Sarah  Rachel  Levison,  better  known 
as  Madame  Rachel,  for  obtaining  from  Mary  Tucker 
Borradaile  money  to  the  amount  of  about  £1,400  by 
certain  false  and  fraudulent  pretences,  and  with  intent  to 
defraud,  was  resumed. 

Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine,  Mr.  Montagu  Williams,  and 
Mr.  Straight  again  conducted  the  prosecution ;  Mr. 
Digby  Seymour,  Q.C.,  Mr.  Serjeant  Parry,  Mr.  Serjeant 
Sleigh,  and  Mr.  Butler  Rigby  the  defence. 

The  court  was  again  crowded,  many  of  the  audience 
being  ladies,  as  on  the  previous  trial.  Lord  Ranelagh 
again  occupied  a  seat  on  a  side  bench. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR,  Q.C.,  addressing  the  Court,  said 
he  had  to  mention  a  matter  in  the  interest  of  his  client, 
if  not  in  his  own  interest.  He  referred,  he  said,  to  a 
charge  made  against  him  in  one  of  the  daily  papers,  and 
which  was  calculated,  he  thought,  to  prejudice  the 
minds  of  the  jury.  He  might  add,  as  his  learned  friend 
(Mr.  Serjeant  Parry)  had  reminded  him,  that  Judges 
had  repeatedly  condemned  comments  by  the  public 
press  in  reference  to  a  trial  which  was  still  pending. 

Mr.  MONTAGU  WILLIAMS  said  his  leader  (Mr.  Ser- 
jeant Ballantine)  had  not  yet  arrived,  and  he  would 
only  say  in  his  absence,  that  he  had  no  doubt  the  public 
papers  would  take  care  of  themselves. 

Mr.  Commissioner  Kerr. — I  can  only  say,  Mr.  Sey- 
mour, if  it  be  any  satisfaction  to  you,  that  I  did  not  see 
in  your  cross-examination  of  the  prosecutrix  yesterday 
anything  in  the  slightest  degree  objectionable. 

Mrs.  Borradaile  was  then  recalled,  and  her  cross- 
examination  was  continued.  Replying  to  Mr.  DIGBY 
SEYMOUR,  she  said, — I  first  called  on  Madame  Rachel 
in  May  or  June,  1864.  I  heard  very  little  about  her 


16 

except  from  advertisements.  I  recollect  her  giving  me 
a  book  and  my  paying  her  half-a-crown  for  it.  [The 
Commissioner. — Then  you  bought  the  book.]  I  think  I 
did.  She  never  said  anything  about  1,000  guineas  until 
she  told  me  I  was  to  be  made  "beautiful  for  ever/'  and 
that  I  was  to  marry  this  good  and  rich  man,  meaning 
Lord  Ranelagh.  She  told  me  1,000  guineas  was  her 
charge  for  enamelling.  I  never  heard  her  say  anything 
about  1,000  guineas.  She  did  not  say  anything  as  to 
the  time  of  the  process.  (A  laugh.)  I  did  not  know 
what  she  was  going  to  do.  I  cannot  tell  you  how  many 
baths  I  took.  I  took  a  great  many.  She  said  it  was 
necessary  for  me  to  be  made  "  beautiful  for  ever,"  but 
I  told  her  in  1866  I  did  not  intend  expending  £10  upon 
her,  and  that  I  thought  she  should  do  something  for  the 
£170  which  I  had  paid  her  and  which  I  thought  was  a 
great  deal.  For  that,  all  that  I  got  was  a  few  powders 
and  soaps.  Between  that  and  May,  1866  I  had  not 
contracted  any  fresh  liabilities  to  her.  [Letter  read, 
dated  May,  1866,  and  which  witness  said  was  in  her 
handwriting]  was  as  follows  : 

"  4,  Francis-street,  London-street,  Paddington,  May, 
1866. 

"  My  dear  Rachel, — My  husband,  Colonel  Borradaile, 
died  the  17th  of  May,  1861.  Will  proved  by  Mr. 
Nelson,  city  solicitor,  whose  brother  lives  in  Grace- 
church-street,  to  whom  I  refer  you,  and  he  will  arrange 
every  thing  to  your  satisfaction.  I  was  left  sole  execu- 
trix to  all  he  possessed  in  the  world.  He  left  one  will 
in  London  with  his  nephew  and  Mr.  J.  C.  Borradaile, 
Blackheath,  and  the  other  in  India.  I  refer  you  to  my 
mother,  who  resides  at  Scaley,  Ham,  near  Haverford 
west,  Pembrokeshire,  South  Wales.  I  am  related  to 
Lord  Kensington,  who  resides  in  London.  Therefore, 
my  dear  Rachel,  you  may  feel  assured  I  am  mistress  of 
my  own  actions,  and  may  do  what  I  think  proper  with 
my  own,  and  this  will  at  once  convince  you  that  I  can 
fulfil  my  promises,  and  carry  out  any  arrangement  with 
you  that  I  have  entered  into." 


17 

That  letter  was  written  in  Madame  Rachel's  shop,  but 
she  told  me  to  direct  it  from  4,  Francis-street,  Padding- 
ton.  I  had  been  staying  there  for  a  few  days.  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  a  coffee-shop  ;  I  do  not  know  what 
it  is.  You  can  say  nothing  against  my  character.  I 
cannot  say  whether  it  is  a  place  with  the  word  "beds  " 
written  over  the  door.  I  think  the  name  of  a  coffee- 
house is  over  the  door.  A  railway  porter  recommended 
me  to  go  there.  On  the  night  I  wrote  that  letter  I  was 
staying  at  28,  George -street.  I  had  not  been  able  to  get 
rooms  at  the  Great  Western  Hotel,  Paddington,  at  the 
top  of  the  house,  and  it  was  too  expensive  for  me  to 
take  them  on  the  first  or  second  floor  there.  I  went 
therefore  to  what  I  thought  was  a  respectable  lodging. 
I  had  left  the  coffeehouse  when  I  wrote  the  letter.  I 
.always  addressed  my  letters  as  Madame  Rachel  directed 
me  ;  I  was  so  foolish.  She  is  a  wicked  and  vile  woman, 
and  you  (addressing  Mr.  Digby  Seymour)  are  bad  too. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Content  yourself  with  simply 
.answering  the  questions. 

"Witness. — I  wrote  all  the  letters  at  Madame  Rachel's 
shop,  and  all  were  dated  from  other  places.  I  cannot 
tell  what  her  object  was  in  asking  me  to  direct  the  letter 
from  Francis-street.  Lord  Kensington  is  a  descendant 
of  a  younger  branch  of  our  family.  All  that  you  have 
read  in  that  letter  is  true. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Did  she  not  require  from  you  a  state- 
ment and  particulars  to  enable  her  to  make  enquiries 
whether  she  could  trust  you  that  1,000  guineas  ? 

Witness. — She  found  out  all  about  me.  I  could  not 
tell  what  her  object  was. 

Was  there  a  bill  given  by  you  for  £1,000,  composed 
of  £800  you  owed  to  Madame  Rachel  and  about  £200 
you  were  indebted  to  a  Mrs.  Hamilton  ? — Nothing  of 
the  sort.  I  recollect  Mr.  Haynes  paid  Rachel  £800, 
.and  that  was  in  addition  to  what  I  had  before  paid  her. 
I  remember  Mr.  Haynes  had  to  do  with  paying  Mrs. 
Hamilton. 

A  letter  you  wrote  to   Mr.  Haynes    refers   to   the 


18 

destruction  of  certain  bills  and  I  O  U's ;  what  do  you 
mean  by  that  ? 

Witness  hesitated. 

By  the  COMMISSIONER. — I  have  no  idea  what  a  com- 
mercial bill  is. 

Cross-examination  continued.  —  I  do  not  recollect 
writing  a  bill  before  June.  I  came  to  London  about 
the  15th  of  May,  1866 — not  later.  I  never  knew  Lord 
Eanelagh  before  that  time.  Next  December  it  will  be 
22  years  since  I  was  married,  and  I  have  been  seven 
years  a  widow.  I  had  not  lived  long  in  India  ;  I  was 
in  bad  health.  I  had  gone  the  overland  route.  I  moved 
in  good  society  there,  but  I  had  bad  health  and  never 
went  out  to  parties  or  balls.  The  first  time  I  saw  Lord 
Ranelagh  was  about  the  middle  of  the  day,  and  that 
was  at  Madame  Rachel's.  I  was  in  the  sitting-room,  a 
small  room  off  the  shop  with  a  glass  door.  The  shop 
itself  is  a  small  place.  The  door  was  closed  when  I  was 
sitting  there.  It  was  opened,  and  I  expected  to  see  the 
man  who  was  in  love  with  me,  and  who  was  expected  to 
marry  me.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  Lord  Ranelagh,  and 
he  said  he  was  and  gave  me  his  card.  I  had  asked  him 
to  give  me  his  card,  thinking  Madame  Kachel  had  told 
me  what  was  not  true.  I  did  not  exactly  believe  her  at 
the  time.  I  cannot  explain  why  I  did  not  keep  the  card. 
He  certainly  did  give  me  the  card,  and  I  gave  it  back  to 
him.  I  cannot  say  why.  I  left,  the  door  was  closed, 
and  I  resumed  my  seat  in  the  little  room.  I  did  not  go 
into  the  shop.  I  was  never  introduced  to  a  gentleman 
before  who  gave  me  his  card.  I  never  thought  much 
about  it.  A  few  days  afterwards  I  saw  Lord  Ranelagh 
at  Madame  Eachel's  again.  Madame  Kachel  \v&s  pre- 
sent. It  was  only  to  be  introduced  again — that  was 
all. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Did  you  hear  anything  endearing 
from  Lord  Ranelagh  ? 

Witness. — It  was  too  soon,  I  thought.  (A  laugh.) 
All  that  he  did  was  to  make  his  bow  to  me.  Witness 
continued.  Madame  Rachel  said  there  were  some 


19 

theatricals  going  on  at  Beaufort-house,  and  he  said  he 
thought  they  were  not  good  enough  for  me.  I  did  not 
speak  to  him  again  until  I  saw  him  in  Mr.  Cridland's 
office.  Madame  Rachel  said  he  had  often  seen  me.  Of 
course,  I  thought  he  was  going  to  marry  me.  I  saw 
him  very  often  at  Madame  Rachel's.  He  was  to  have 
dined  with  me  one  day  at  St.  James's-hall.  Madame 
Rachel  told  me  he  had  plenty  of  money.  I  afterwards 
found  he  was  poor,  and  it  then  occurred  to  me  that 
Madame  Rachel  had  told  me  what  was  not  true.  That 
was  about  October,  1866.  She  always  told  me  the  man 
adored  me.  I  don't  think  I  quite  disbelieved  what  she 
told  me.  (A  laugh.)  I  cannot  say ;  I  really  forget.  [A 
letter  was  here  read  signed  "  William,"  and  addressed 
from  Birdcage-walk.  It  ran  thus  : — "  What  is  it,  my 
sweet  love  ?  My  own  dear  one,  what  you  said  last 
night  I  thought  was  in  joke.  Is  it  the  bill  that  has 
annoyed  you?"]  I  had  not  met  Lord  Ranelagh  the 
night  before.  I  could  not  understand  a  great  many  of 
the  letters.  I  thought  a  great  deal  in  them  was  remark- 
able. It  was  about  September,  1866,  that  I  wrote  the 
letter  in  which  I  said  I  had  called  at  Madame  Rachel's 
"  and  she  looked  as  black  as  thunder." 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Do  you  mean  to  tell  the  Court 
the  letters  you  received  were  the  productions  of  Lord 
Ranelagh  ? — Yes,  I  do. 

Do  you  think  Lord  Ranelagh  would  employ  a  servant 
to  write  a  letter  to  his  intended  wife  ? — Madame  Rachel 
swore  to  me  most  solemnly  it  was  the  case  that  he  did. 
I  have  occasionally  seen  a  Peerage  Lord  Ranelagh's 
name  is  Thomas  Heron  Jones.  Thomas  would  have 
done  as  well  as  William.  My  maiden  name  was 
Edwardes.  It  was  Madame  Rachel  who  suggested  that 
the  name  of  Captain  William  Edwardes  should  be  used. 
He  is  now  a  colonel  in  the  Guards,  and  was  here  yester- 
day. The  following  letter  was  read  :— 

"  4,  Francis-street,  London-street,  May  26 
"  (postmark  May  28),  1866. 

"  My  clear  Love, — I  am  sorry  I  cannot  keep  my  ap- 

c 


20 

pointment  with  you  to-morrow,  as  I  do  not  think  of 
staying  in  these  apartments,  but  I  shall  have  no  objec- 
tion to  meet  you  any  day  next  week  that  you  may  name. 
I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  articles.  They  are  all 
very  good.  I  have  given  Madame  Eachel  what  I  pro- 
mised her,  as  I  like  to  keep  my  word,  and  she  has  given 
me  a  month's  grace.  She  will  not  trouble  me  for  a 
month  for  the  second  promise.  I  hope  we  shall  have  a 
quiet  day,  as  it  will  be  more  pleasant  for  me,  as  before 
I  do  not  wish  for  any  intrusion.  With  my  best  love, 
believe  me,  yours  for  ever, 

"  MARY  BORRADAILE." 

[This  was  addressed  "  Mr.  Edwardes,  care  of  Madame 
Rachel,  47 (a),  New  Bond- street."]  I  do  not  recollect 
writing  that,  but  I  suppose  I  did.  I  cannot  swear  it  is 
my  writing.  I  cannot  swear  either  way.  It  may  be 
my  writing,  I  never  recollect  directing  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Edwardes.  On  the  26th  of  May,  1866,  I  think  I  was 
not  lodging  in  Francis-street.  I  was  six  days  at  a  coffee- 
house near  the  Paddington-station.  After  that  I  went 
to  4,  Francis-street,  where  I  was  four  days,  and  I  after- 
wards went  to  the  address  in  Great  George-street.  I 
cannot  say  whether  I  was  at  4,  Francis-street.  I  never 
wrote  a  letter  there.  I  could  not  then  say  I  was  about 
to  give  up  my  apartments.  I  had  not  seen  any 
"  William,"  and  I  cannot  explain  what  the  words,  "  I 
do  not  wish  for  any  intrusion  "  means. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Then,  that  was  a  falsehood  dictated 
by  Madame  Eachel  ? 

Witness. — Of  course,  it  was ;  she  is  quite  equal  to 
that.  She  always  said  I  must  trust  to  her.  I  really 
forget  all  about  the  letter.  [A  letter  was  here  read, 
dated  28,  George-street,  Hanover-square,  September 
1,  1866,  and  which  witness  thought  was  her  letter. 
It  ran  thus  : — "  My  dear  William, — I  am  surprised 
and  grieved  at  what  you  say,  that  I  place  more  confi- 
dence in  Mr.  Haynes  than  yourself  so  far.  I  have 
not  seen  htm  since  Thursday,  when  I  saw  him  at  Mr. 
Clayton's  office,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  see  him  again 


21 

without  I  am  obliged  to  do  so,  I  shall  write  to  him  to- 
day as  Rachel  and  myself  have  arranged  our  affairs 
amicably,  I  assure  you  I  went  after  taking  .my  bath 
yesterday  to  the  coffeehouse  in  Davies-street,  nearly 
opposite  to  the  baths,  I  went  twice  to  see  if  I  could  find 
you,  and  I  left  word  with  the  bath  attendant,  Mrs. 
Hicks,  and  I  had  to  wait  for  her  nearly  half  an  hour, 
that  if  you  called  I  had  gone  to  Madame  Rachel's,  and 
in  lieu  of  seeing  you  I  received  nothing  but  unkind  up- 
braidings,  I  tell  you  again  and  again  that  it  was  my 
intention  to  go  with  you  to  Grindlay's  yesterday,  to  do 
all  in  my  power  for  you.  You  know  my  feelings  to- 
wards you ;  but  I  cannot  do  impossibilities.  I  Have 
heard  nothing  of  Mr.  Braham,  Mr.  Roger's  Solicitor. 
I  shall  manage  to  arrange  between  this  and  Monday. 
In  hopes  that  I  shall  see  you  shortly,  and  with  fondest 
love,  believe  me  your  affectionate  and  devoted,  MARY  T. 

BORRADAILE."] 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Did  you  expect,  to  find  Lord  Rane- 
lagh  at  a  coffeehouse  in  Davies-street  ? 

Witness. — Do  you  suppose  he  never  goes  to  such 
places  ?  (A  laugh.)  She  continued. — I  say  those  letters 
were  all  written  under  the  influence  of  Madame  Rachel. 
I  don't  know  whether  I  expected  to  meet  him  there  or 
not.  The  passage  in  the  same  letter,  "  I  tell  you  again 
and  again  that  it  was  my  intention  to  go  with  you 
to  Grindlay's  yesterday,  to  do  all  I  can  for  you," 
I  wrote  at  the  dictation  of  Madame  Rachel, 
Grindlay's  was  a  place  were  my  pension  was  paid.  I 
had  not  had  any  communication  the  day  before  with 
any  one  as  to  going  there. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  Madame  Rachel  find  fault 
with  you  for  expending  your  money  on  a  paramour  ? 

Witness  (indignantly). -^What  paramour  ?  I  never  had 
one. 

Did  she  not  blame  you  for  expending  money  on  a 
paramour  ? — No,  never. 

Or  that  your  family  ought  to  be  informed  of  your  ex- 
travagance ? — No,  never,  I  will  swear  she  never  censured 

c2 


22 

me  for  squandering  my  money  on  a  paramour.  I  said 
on  the  last  occasion  she  might  have  mentioned  it  in  my 
presence  at  Mr.  Haynes's  office,  but  I  did  not  recollect 
it,  nor  what  answer  I  gave  if  that  was  said.  Mr.  Cope, 
my  brother-in-law  (witness  continued  to  say),  came  to- 
town  in  September,  1866.  A  letter,  dated  in  that 
month,  was  read,  It  ran  ; — 

"  My  own  dear  William, — If  you  knew  what  I  have 
suffered  since  Saturday  night  on  your  account  one 
unkind  word  would  never  have  escaped  your  lips  to  me.. 
My  brother-in-law  went  to  the  Carlton  to  see  Lord 
Ranelagh.  They  told  him  he  was  out  of  town,  and 
they  said  he  would  not  be  back  for  a  week.  My  brot- 
her then  went  to  New  Burlington-street,  and  a  servant 
told  him  there  his  lordship  had  been  out  of  town  for 
three  weeks,  and  that  all  his  letters  had  been  sent  to 
Lowther  Castle  .  .  .  You  would  have  been  amused 
at  the  frantic  manner  in  which  he  was  running  about 
town  looking  for  the  invisible  person  who  could  not  be 
found,  thanks  to  our  lucky  stars." 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Who  was  "  the  invisible  per- 
son ?"  Witness. — That  was  Lord  Ranelagh. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  continuing  to  read  the  letter,— 
"  Not  content  with  that,  he  took  us  to  Regent-street 
and  bought  a  photo,  of  his  Lordship,  whose  nose  he  did 
not  admire.  (Laughter.)  Mr.  Cope  made  me  promise 
to  leave  my  present  lodgings,  that  he  was  under  the 
belief  that  the  people  at  the  house  and  poor  Rachel 
were  in  league  together  in  fooling  me  into  a  marriage 
with  Lord  Ranelagh."  To  whom  did  you  then  believe 
you  were  writing  ? 

Witness. — I  certainly  believed  I  was  writing  to  Lord 
Eanelagh. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  you  were  doing  that  when  you 
stated  your  brother-in-law  "  bought  a  photo,  of  his 
Lordship,  whose  nose  he  did  not  admire  T  (A  laugh.) 
— Yes. 

Did  you  think  you  were  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh 
when  you  said, — "  Mr.  Cope  and  my  sister  made  me 


23 

promise  I  would  not  see  Rachel  again,  as  I  led  them  to 
suppose  she  had  been  the  promoter  of  his  Lordship  in 
intriguing  with  me? " 

Witness. — I  never  had  any  such  intrigue,  nor  with 
any  other  man.  She  (Rachel)  dictated  that  letter  to  me 
and  I  thought  I  was  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh. 

Do  you  consider  marriage  and  intrigue  the  same  thing?" 
Witness. — I  really  do  not  know  much  about  intrigues. 
I  don't  think  they  are  equivalent  expressions.  All, 
letters  were  dictaded  by  Madame,  and  sometimes  I 
altered  them  when  I  thought  the  grammar  was  not  good 
I  knew  Madame  Rachel  got  a  boy  to  write  letters.  I 
have  seen  one  or  two  boys  writing  there.  [A  letter 
dated  September  5,  from  36,  Davies-street,  Berkeley- 
square,  was  read.  It  said, — "My  dear  William, — I 
have  been  anxiously  waiting  to  hear  from  or  to  see  you. 
You  are  very  welcome  to  anything  and  all  that  you  have 
of  mine.  When  I  asked  to  have  my  letters  returned,  I 
did  not  mean  what  I  said.  It  was  said  only  when  I 
thought  you  were  cold  and  unkind  to  me.  I  did  not 
deserve  it.  I  have  not  called  upon  Mr.  Haynes,  as  my 
brother-in-law  wished  me  to  do.  My  family  have  no 
power  to  control  me  or  my  affairs.  My  husband  left 
me  everything  he  possessed,  and  the  right  of  doing  what 
I  thought  proper  with  it,  and  I  shall  write  to  Mr.  Haynes 
to-day  and  tell  him  so.  I  will  wait  here  until  3  o'clock, 
and  if  you  do  not  come  to  me  I  will  leave  town  with- 
out you.  Perhaps  if  I  do  it  will  not  break  your  heart 
Do  not  mention  the  patience  of  Job  when  you  think  of 
me.  I  am  afraid  to  go  to  Rachel's  for  fear  of  Mr. 
Bauer.  She  told  me  yesterday  he  had  an  execution 
.against  me.  I  offered  to  give  him  the  lace  back, 
but  he  would  not  take  it.  With  my  fond  love,  believe 
me,  your  affectionate  and  loving  MARY  TUCKER 

BORRADAILE."] 

I  never  had  the  lace.  I  may  have  written  that  letter. 
J  only  recollect  the  reference  to  the  patience  of  Job.  I 
think  Madame  Rachel  or  Mr.  Haynes,  I  forget  which 
told  me  something  about  an  execution.  I  think  I  had 


24 

been  served  with  a  writ  at  the  suit  of  Mr.  Bauer.  I  was 
then  lodging  in  George  Street.  I  was  four  times  arrested, 
[Another  letter,  dated  September  6,  and  from  36, 
Davies-street,  was  put  in.  It  said, — "  My  dear  William. 
I  have  just  received  a  letter  from  my  sister  Mrs.  Cope, 
with  a  postscript  from  her  husband,  and  he  says  he  will 
be  in  town  shortly  after  I  receive  it.  He  comes  up  in 
consequence  of  Madame  Rachel  having  sent  him  a  copy 
of  a  letter  I  wrote  you  just  after  you  left  for  North 
Wales  last  Monday.  She  has  exposed  the  whole  thing 
about  the  lace.  It  was  most  foolish  of  her  exposing  my 
affairs,  but  she  did  it  to  prevent  my  being  arrested.  This 
affair  has  nearly  broken  my  heart."]  I  recollect  that 
letter  and  I  recollect  the  lace,  but  I  had  never  seen  the 
lace.  I  did  not  expect  she  had  exposed  my  affairs  ta 
my  family.  My  brother-in-law  never  told  me  I  was  in- 
corrigible, but  he  thought  I  was  a  foolish  person.  [A 
passage  from  a  letter,  dated  September  13,  was  read 
thus, — "  My  dear  William,  I  shall  see  Mrs.  Lilly  as  you 
desire,  and  she  will,  no  doubt  be  of  service  to  us."]  I 
stayed  four  days  at  the  coffee-house,  4  Francis-street. 
I  never  recollect  meeting  any  one  there.  Mrs.  Lilly 
may  have  been  the  person  who  waited  on  me  there. 
[The  letter  continued — "You  know  there  are  such 
things  as  talking  birds.  I  feel  better  now  that  you  told 
me  we  shall  leave  Charing- cross  next  morning.  Will 
that  morning  ever  come  ....  But  you  seem  to 
know  the  overland  route  to  my  heart."] 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Who  was  the  author  of  that 
expression,  "the  overland  route  to  my  heart,"  Mrs. 
Borradaile  ?  (A  laugh.) 

Witness  (smiling).— I  don't  know 

MR.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — It  is  a  very  happy  expression, 
you  know,  and  you  have  been  to  India  and  back. 

Witness. — It  was  not  mine.  It  was  she  (Rachel)  that 
suggested  it  to  me.  I  am  sure  I  did  not. 

MR.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  referred  to  a  letter  dated  the 
17th  of  September,  from  36,  Davies-street,  and  running 
thus  :— "  My  dear  William. — I  am  happy  to  say  your 


25 

kind  message  has  made  me  much  happier  than  I  was 
yesterday,  .  .  .  How  could  it  be  otherwise,  when 
instead  of  being  in  Paris  I  am  in  my  lodgings  and  you 
were  ill  in  bed  ?  The  old  saying,  "  The  course  of  true 
love  never  runs  smooth.'"  That,  of  course,  was  also  at 
Madame  Kachel's  dictation  ?  (A  laugh.) 

Witness  — Yes. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  (reading). — "  Even  that  beastly 
Pike  (a  laugh)  followed  me  into  Madame  Kachel's,  .and 
wanted  me  to  purchase  the  diamonds.  He  wanted  me 
to  sign  for  £1,600,  but  I  was  not  such  a  fool." 

Witness. — I  think  I  have  been  a  very  great  fool.  I 
wrote  all  those  letters  to  Rachel's  dictation.  Witness 
continued,  replying  to  a  question, — I  had  selected  some 
shirt  fronts,  but  I  cannot  say  where. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — What !  Shirt-fronts  for  Lord 
Ranelagh  ?  (Laughter.) 

Witness. — It  is  very  likely  he  may  want  them. 
[Shewn  an  invoice.]  I  never  paid  that.  They  were 
sent  to  my  lodgings  ;  and  I  would  not  take  them  in.  I 
ordered  them  but  I  would  not  pay  for  them. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Now  listen  to  this  letter.  "You  had 
better  get  the  hats  at  Johnson's,  and  whatever  you  do, 
my  darling,  do  it  as  quickly  as  possible.  My  dear  Wil- 
liam, I  am  quite  ready  to  start  if  you  will  quickly  send 
me  word.  I  do  not  wish  to  live  on  bad  terms  with  you. 
It  would  not  be  policy  on  your  part."  AVho  dictated 
that  letter  ? — Madame  Rachel. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  she  dictated  the  words,  "  It  would 
not  be  policy  on  your  part "  ? — I  think  those  were  put 
in  by  myself,  but  I  am  not  quite  sure. 

Then  is  it  the  fact  that,  though  she  dictated,  you  put 
in  some  sentences  of  your  own  ? — I  sometimes  improved 
a  sentence,  but  she  always  dictated. 

The  next  letter  is  written  to  Madame  Rachel.  It  says, 
"  I  told  him  (Lord  Ranelagh)  that  you  (Rachel)  had 
many  good  qualities,  that  you  were  fond  of  your  chil- 
dren, and  gave  to  the  poor."  Do  you  mean  to  swear 


26 

that  that  letter  was  written  by  ycri  to  Rachel  at  Rachel's 
dictation  1 — I  do. 

Then  it  appears  that  all  the  letters  written  by  you  to 
William,  to  Rachel,  and  to  everybody  else  were  written 
at  Rachel's  dictation  ? — That  is  so.  Madame  Rachel 
told  me  on  one  occasion,  in  a  friendly  manner,  that  she 
was  80  years  of  age.  (A  laugh.) 

And  did  you  believe  her  ? — I  did  not. 

What  did  you  say  ? — I  told  her  I  was  68  myself. 
(Laughter ) 

Then  you  were  12  years  her  junior.  Now,  here  is  a 
letter  dated  the  29th  of  September.  Was  that  written 
by  you  ? — I  cannot  say ;  it  is  like  my  handwriting. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  you  don't  know  your  own  hand- 
writing ? — I  can  only'say  it  looks  very  like  my  writing. 

It  is  dated  from  George- street,  Hanover-square,  and 
in  it  you  say  to  Lord  Ranelagh,  "  I  am  surprised  at 
Madame  Rachel's  impertinence ;  she  had  no  right  to  be 
impertinent  to  you."  Who  dictated  that? — Madame 
Rachel. 

What !  Madame  Rachel  dictated  that  she  had  been 
impertinent  to  his  lordship  ? — Yes. 

Then  there  comes  this  passage,  "  Tear  yourself  away 
from  the  little  lady  with  the  golden  hair  who  is  in  the 
habit  of  scratching  your  face."  (A  laugh.)  Who  is 
this  "  little  lady  with  the  golden  hair  ?  "  Is  it  yourself  ? 
— No  ;  somebody  else. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Oh  !  then  there  is  a  little  lady  in 
the  case  with  golden  hair,  who  scratches  Lord  Ranelagh's 
face  ?  (Laughter.)  Did  you  say  you  wrote  that  letter 
to  Lord  Ranelagh  ? — I  did. 

Was  it  exclusively  intended  for  him  ? — It  was. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — Who  was  it  told  you  there  was  a 
little  lady  with  golden  hair  who  was  in  the  habit  of 
scratching  his  face  ? — Madame  Rachel. 

And  she  dictated  that  letter  ?— Yes. 

In  the  next  letter,  dated  the  3rd  of  October,  1866, 
you  say,  "  My  dear  William, — Madame  Rachel  had,  as 
usual,  some  very  high  words  with  me  to-day ;  indeed,  it 


was  a  serious  quarrel,  and  all  concerning  you."    Is  that 
true  ? — She  dictated  the  letter  to  me. 

Yes,  but  you  say  here  "  as  usual ;  "  was  it,  then,  usual 
for  you  and  .Rachel  to  have  high  words  ? — It  was  not. 

What  was  this  particular  quarrel  about  ? — I  do  not 
recollect. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Then,  was  what  you  say  about 
the  "  high  words  "  an  invention  ? — I  don't  recollect  what 
the  quarrel  was  about. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR. — In  the  next  letter  to  Lord  Ranelagh 
you  say  "  Rachel  wishes  Mr.  Haynes  to  write  to  you  to 
return  my  property  and  money,  I  asked  her  how  dare 
she  or  any  one  else  to  take  such  a  liberty  with  me  as  to 
ask  you  to  return  my  property  and  money.  Therefore, 
my  darling,  whatever  you  hear  from  them  on  this 
subject,  dont  mind  them.  I  am  quite  ready  to  meet 
you  wherever  you  like,  but  don't  let  it  be  at  that  horrid 
place  where  the  poor  man  was  killed.  I  will  comply 
with  your  wishes,  but  if  you  keep  me  waiting  I  will 
scold  you."  Where  was  this  place  where  the  man  was 
killed  ?  I  do  no  not  know  ;  I  never  went  to  it. 

I  have  now  to  request  your  particular  attention  to 
your  next  letter  to  Lord  Ranelagh,  in  which  you  say, 
"  One  of  your  kind  friends,  and  your  bosom  companions, 
has  informed  me  that  you  have  been  are  now  keeping  a 
woman.  Not  one  member  of  my  family  will  hold  any 
intercourse  with  me  for  forming  such  a  degraded  con- 
nexion. Did  you  then  think  that  it  would  have  been  a  ' 
degraded  connexion  to  marry  Lord  Ranelagh  ? — Well, 
it  is  not  exactly  what  a  man  is,  but  what  he  does,  that  I 
look  at. 

Then  you  used  the  words  "  degraded  connexion  " 
advisedly  ? — Yes. 

Now,  mark  the  entire  of  the  sentence : — "  Not  one 
member  of  my  family  will  hold  any  intercourse  with  me 
for  forming  such  a  degraded  connexion,  as  it  is  well 
known  in  Pembrokeshire  that  I  have  been  living  with 
you  for  some  months."  Did  you  write  that  ? 

Witness  (very  indignantly). — I  shall  make  you  prove 
that ;  you  can  say  nothing  against  my  character. 


28 

I  said  nothing  against  it  myself :  I  was  simply  quoting 
what  you  said  against  your  own  character  yourself.  I 
ask  you  again,  did  you  write  that  letter  acknowledging 
that  you  had  been  living  with  Lord  Kanelagh  for 
months  ? — Yes,  I  accepted  Madame  Rachel's  dictation. 
Trusting  to  that  wicked  woman — that  foul,  wicked 
woman  in  the  dock — I  wrote  whatever  she  dictated. 

Then  what  you  tell  the  Court  and  jury  is  this, — that 
you,  the  widow  of  an  Indian  officer,  the  woman  of  virtue 
and  integrity,  deliberately  wrote  that  it  was  well  known 
in  Pembrokeshire  that  "  you  had  been  living  with  Lord 
Ranelagh  for  months  ?  —  I  have  no  recollection  of 
writing  that  letter. 

The  next  sentence  of  it  read  as  follows  : — "  When  I 
receive  a  letter  from  my  daughter  it  is  full  of  insults." 
Is  that  true  ?  Have  you  received  letters  from  your 
daughter  upbraiding  you  with  anything  ?  Never ;  her 
letters  were  always  written  with  the  kindest  affection. 

The  letter  goes  on,  "  You  cannot  be,  and  are  not, 
surprised  at  this,  considering  the  life  we  have  been 
leading." — I  had  not  been  leading  any  immoral  life ;  I 
had  been  living  in  George-street,  Hanover-square,  for 
months. 

Yes  ;  but  what  I  have  read  is  in  your  letter.  You 
go  on  to  say,  "  Am  I  to  believe  that  the  woman  you 
travelled  with,  and  whom  you  introduced  to  me  as  your 
sister,  is  your  mistress  ?  "  Is  that  true  ?  Did  Lord 
Kanelagh  introduce  you  to  a  woman  as  his  sister  ? — No  ; 
but  Madame  Rachel  introduced  to  me  a  woman  who 
she  said  was  his  lordship's  sister. 

In  the  next  letter,  dated  the  18th  of  October,  1867, 
you  write, — •'  My  own  dear  William, — It  was  very  kind 
of  you  to  take  care  of  my  comb  and  frisette  ;  it  is  my 
own  hair.  The  man  who  keeps  the  hairdresser's  shop 
at  the  corner  of  High-street,  Cheltenham,  made  it  for 
me — the  man  who  used  to  shave  jou  when  you  were 
there."  When  you  mean  to  say  that  you  wrote  that 
letter,  and  wrote  it  to  Lord  Ranelagh  ? — I  do. 

Then   you  wrote  to  his  lordship  that  he  had  been 


29 

shaved  by  a  hairdresser  at  Cheltenham  ?     (A  laugh.) — 
Yes,  I  was  told  that  he  wore  a  wig. 

But  what  had  his  wig  to  do  with  his  shaving  ? 
(Laughter.)  Were  you  at  Cheltenham  with  him  ? — No  ; 
but  I  was  told  he  was  there  when  I  was  there. 

The  letter  goes  on  to  say/'  Madame  Rachel  told  me 
she  had  all  my  momey,  and  Mr.  Haynes  agreed  with 
her  that  what  had  been  done  in  the  matter  of  parting 
with  my  money  was  sanctioned  by  me.  I  had  a  terrible 
quarrel  with  Rachel,  but  it  is  now  made  up."  Is  that 
true  that  Rachel  told  you  she  had  all  your  money  ? — 
Yes  ;  she  often  told  me  she  had  all  my  money. 

The  next  letter  reads  as  follows : — "  My  own  dear 
William, — Your  letters  are  safe  in  my  possession,  and  I 
am  rejoiced  to  read  them  over  very  often.  I  have  no  one  to 
care  for  now  but  you,  and  I  love  you  all  the  more  for  it. 
Therefore  you  must  not  doubt  me.  I  have  given  you 
all  a  woman  holds  dear."  What  did  you  mean  by  that 
last  expression  ? — That  I  had  given  him  all  my  money. 

In  your  next  letter  you  ask  Lord  Ranelagh  how  he 
can  call  himself  an  "  old  donkey  "  (a  laugh),  and  then 
you  go  on  to  tell  him  that  Mr.  Cridland  is  about  to  bring  an 
action  at  your  suit  against  Madame  Rachel  for  the 
recovery  of  your  money,  and  that  it  would  have  been 
well  if  Lord  Ranelagh  had  not  sent  a  box  of  your  letters 
to  Rachel's  the  latter  having  a  great  motive  in  keeping 
them.  Now,  I  ask  you  on  your  solemn  oath,  was  that 
letter  written  at  the  prisoner's  dictation  ? — Yes  ;  I  have 
already  told  you  that  I  wrote  all  my  letters  at  her 
dictation. 

You  next  go  on  to  say  that  you  were  sure  Rachel 
would  send  your  box  of  letters  to  Mr.  Cridland,  and 
that  the  latter  had  told  you  that  he  had  sent  your  case 
against  her  to  the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench.  Did  you 
bring  an  action  against  her  in  the  Queen's  Bench  ?— 
I  did. 

I  suppose  you  know  that  had  that  case  been  gone  on 
with  she  could  have  given  evidence  ? — Yes. 

I  believe  this  criminal  prosecution  is  not  carried  on 
at  your  instance  ? — It  is  not. 


30 

In  point  of  fact  you  have  no  wish  to  prosecute  her  ? — 
I  have  not.  I  would  rather  not  prosecute  her  criminally 
because  I  have  no  desire  that  the  case  should  be 
made  so  public  as  it  has  been.  I  would  rather  proceed 
against  her  in  a  civil  court ;  but  what  could  I  do,  when 
I  could  get  neither  my  money  nor  my  clothes  ? 

In  the  next  letter  you  say  that  "  Rachel  growled  like 
a  bear  "  and  that  "  she  was  like  a  witch,  because  there 
was  nothing  she  did  not  know."  Did  you  write  that  ? — 
I  do  not  think  I  could  have  made  use  of  such  an 
expression  as  that  "  she  growled  like  a  bear  "  but  I  do 
recollect  writing  that  "  she  was  like  a  witch." 

Your  next  letter  reads  in  this  way  "  My  own  dear 
William, — Any  sacrifice  you  have  made  for  me  I  shall 
never  forget.  I  am  glad  for  your  sake  as  well  as  for  my 
own  that  you  are  economizing.  I  cannot  thank  you, 
but  I  will  kiss  you,  or  you  shall  kiss  me,  which  I  shall 
like  better.  (Laughter.)  I  should,  indeed,  have  been 
sorry  if  you  had  gone  to  Ireland,  that  wretched  place. 
What  good  could  you  do,  my  darling,  by  mixing  your- 
self up  with  the  Fenians,  or  having  anything  to  do  with 
them  ?"  Now,  did  you  think  when  you  wrote  that  letter 
that  Lord  Ranelagh  had  been  at  any  time  connected 
with  the  Fenians  ? — I  do  not  recollect  that  letter. 

Did  you  ever  see  a  man  named  O'Keefe  ? — Yes  ;  by 
Mr.  Cridland's  wishes  he  called  on  me  at  Paris. 

Did  O'Keefe  take  a  considerable  part  in  the  Fenian 
meetings  which  were  going  on  ? — He  did. 

He  had  a  nephew  or  a  son,  I  believe  ? — I  cannot  tell; 
I  know  very  little  about  him. 

In  one  of  your  letters  you  speak  of  him  as  a  man  who 
had  been  once  with  the  Fenians,  who  was  to  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Stephens  in  the  future,  and  who  had  in  the 
past  squandered  all  his  money  in  a  hopeless  cause. 
Now,  does  that  description  recall  to  your  memory  any  of 
the  relations  of  O'Keefe — in  particular,  a  half  military, 
half  sporting-looking  man  ? — I  know  nothing  whatever 
about  such  a  man  or  such  a  letter. 

Had  you  and   O'Keefe    any    business   transactions 


31 

together  ? — No,  except  that  he  thought  it  the  wisest 
plan  to  prosecute  the  prisoner,  in  order  to  enable  me  to 
get  back  my  money. 

You  probably  thought  Madame  Kachel  would  settle 
with  you  if  you  instituted  a  prosecution  against  her  ? — 
Yes,  I  thought  she  would  not  have  had  the  audacity  to 
keep  my  money  and  clothes  and  that  she  would  not 
stand  a  trial. 

Did  he  tell  you  rather  than  have  a  criminal  charge, 
advanced  against  her  in  this  court  she  would  pay  you  ? — 
I  have  already  told  you  that  I  never  thought  myself  she 
would  keep  my  money  and  clothes  after  the  prosecution 
had  been  commenced. 

Did  you  employ  O'Keefe  to  go  to  Kachel's  to  try  to 
settle  this  matter  ? — No. 

Do  you  know  that  he  went  there  ? — I  know  nothing 
at  all  about  it ;  he  never  told  me  he  was  going. 

Don't  you  know  he  went  to  Rachel's  house  and 
offered  for  a  sum  of  money  to  settle  the  matter  ? — No  ; 
nor  do  I  believe  he  did. 

Here  is  a  letter  written  at  the  end  of  1867,  which 
commences  with  "  My  own  dear  William, — If  you  look 
at  the  enclosed  bill  you  will  see  that  I  am  not  the  extra- 
vagant person  your  sister  says  I  am.  I  bought  Florence 
my  daughter,  a  pair  of  boots  and  three  pairs  of  stockings 
but  not  before  she  wanted  them."  Did  Rachel  tell  you 
to  write  and  tell  Lord  Ranelagh  that  you  bought  a  pair 
of  boots  and  three  pairs  of  stockings  for  your  daughter? 
(A  laugh.) — She  did. 

The  letter  goes  on  "  Your  sister  ought  to  see  that 
your  stockings  are  mended.  (Laughter.)  I  cannot 
see  why  she  cannot  mend  them  herself,  and  put  some 
buttons  on  your  shirts.  (Laughter.)  It  would  be 
better  than  gossipping  with  the  woman  next  room  to 
her.  Send  all  your  clothes  that  want  mending  to  me." 
(Laughter.)  Now,  did  Rachel  really  tell  you  to  write 
to  a  nobleman  like  Lord  Ranelagh,  with  instructions 
that  he  should  get  his  stockings  darned,  and  buttons 
put  upon  his  shirts,  and  that  he  should  send  his 


32 

tattered  garments  up  to  you  to  be  mended  ?  (Renewed 
laughter.) — She  did ;  she  meant  that  all  his  clothes  that 
wanted  mending  were  to  be  sent  to  me. 

So  says  the  letter  :  but  let  us  proceed  : — "As  you 
want  boots  we  shall  go  to  a  maker  in  Oxford-street  and 
get  a  pair.  (More  laughter.)  I  am  surprised  to  find 
that  your  flannels  should  be  worn  out  (great  laughter), 
though  you  have  not  had  them  more  than  six  weeks. 
It  is  the  result  of  bad  washing.  There  is  a  man  living 
in  a  court  oft'  Regent-street  who  mends  coats  cheaply, 
and  I  think  you  might  give  him  a  job."  (Renewed 
laughter.)  Now  I  ask  you  on  your  solemn  oath,  did 
you,  when  you  wrote  that  letter  to  this  shirtless,  button- 
less,  stockless,  bootless,  flannelless,  hatless  individual 
(roars  of  laughter),  think  that  yon  were  writing  to 
Lord  Ranelagh  ? — At  that  time  I  found  out  that  he 
was  not  a  rich  man. 

I  ask  the  question  again.  On  your  oath,  did  you 
then  think  you  were  then  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh  ? — 
I  did. 

You  sign  that  letter,  "  Your  affectionate  and  loving 
Mary."  In  your  next  letter  you  ask  him  whether  he 
has  seen  the  Daily  Telegraph,  and  then  you  express  the 
shame  with  which  you  read  an  account  of  "  poor 
Tommy"  (meaning  his  lordship)  having  been  fined  20s. 
for  smoking  a  cigar  in  a  railway  carriage.  You  also 
express  a  wish  that  he  may  never  do  worse,  and  then 
you  inform  him  that  Mr.  Cridland,  your  attorney,  is 
coming  down  upon  him  for  the  recovery  of  your  money. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  here  complained  that  new 
letters  had  been  introduced  that  day  which  were  not 
produced  upon  former  occasion. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  said  that  all  the  letters  now  in- 
troduced were  in  court  upon  the  last  occasion. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLAUTINE  promised  to  argue  at  a  future 
stage  of  the  trial  that  several  of  these  letters  were  not 
authentic. 

Cross-examination  continued  by  Mr.  SEYMOUR. — In 
a  letter  written  to  Lord  Ranelagh  in  January,  1868,  you 


33 

say  "  Mr.  Cridland's  clerk  has  served  Each  el  with  a  writ 
for  4, 0001.  I  am  very  sorry  for  you,  as  Rachel  is  sure  to 
expose  the  whole  affair.  I  think  of  my  feelings.  They 
told  me  it  was  a  case  of  transportation,  and  I  am  quite 
sure  Rachel  would  assist  to  transport  you."  Now,  did 
you  really  think  when  you  wrote  that  letter  that  Rachel 
Avould  assist  in  transporting  his  lordship  ?  I  have  no 
recollection  of  that  letter.  The  letter  produced,  dated, 
"  Great  Western  Hotel,  May,  1 866,"  I  think  is  in  my 
handwriting.  (The  letter  alluded  to  the  return  of  some 
receipts,  and  it  stated  that  Mr.  Lovejoy  had  summoned 
her  that  morning.)  Lovejoy  is  the  keeper  of  a 
coffee-house  in  London-street.  He  never  retained  any 
of  my  property.  Forsomeshort  time  past  I  lodged  in  Fran- 
cis-street, but  I  discovered  that  it  was  not  such  a  place 
as  a  lady  ought  to  be  in,  and  in  the  letter  I  asked 
Madame  Rachel,  not  to  mention  my  address  to  any  one 
The  letter,  dated  November  26,  1866  is  in  my  hand 
writing.  (This  letter  expressed  confidence  in  Madame 
Rachel,  and  stated  that  if  she,  Mrs.  Borradaile,  thought 
proper  to  place  her  affections  on  a  man  who  had  not  a 
shilling  she  should  so,  and  that  if  he  wanted  a  hair 
of  her  head  he  should  have  it.  (Laughter.)  The  books 
produced  were  given  by  me  to  Madame  Rachel  (The 
prisoner  here  gave  an  hysterical  sigh,  and  was  allowed 
to  leave  the  court  for  a  few  minutes.)  I  wrote  to  Mr. 
Cridland  and  Mr.  Haynes,  I  think,  to  obtain  from 
Madame  my  box  of  letters.  This  letter  was  written 
at  the  prisoner's  dictation.  The  letter  dated  February 
1868,  was  written  by  me.  It  asked  Madame  Rachel  to 
give  her  back  the  box  of  letters,  and  put  an  end  ot  her 
misery,  and  it  added,  "You  shall  not  be  made  a  victim  to 
serve  other  people,  as  you  have  kept  my  confidence, 
and  I  shall  repay  you  as  a  lady  ought  to  do.")  I  cannot 
tell  what  were  the  intentions  of  Madame  Rachel— 
whether  she  would  give  the  letters  to  me  or  to  Mr. 
Cridland.  She  had  said  that  she  would  do  either.  She 
had  my  authority  to  give  them  to  Mr.  Cridland.  I 
wished  her  very  much  to  do  so.  I  and  Madame 


34 

Rachel  did  not  go  into  the  question  of  accounts  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  Haynes.  We  went  to  his  office  to  get 
him  to  arrange  things  amicably — to  get  back  my  clothes 
and  such  like,  without  having  to  go  to  law  about  them 
There  were  numbers  of  letters  read  on  the  last  occasion 
about  which  I  recollect  nothing  whatever.  The 
enclosure  to  the  letter  of  March  26,  1867,  is  not  my 
writing.  (The  written  enclosure  stated  that  the 
witness  had  entered  into  an  engagement  to  pay 
Madame  Rachel  £150.  per  annum  out  of  her  pension 
on  consideration  of  her  giving  up  a  mortgage  deed  for 
£600.  Which  witness  had  given  her.)  My  pension  is 
£350  a  year.  I  never  remember  writing  the  letter  to 
dear  Tommy  telling  him  that  he  must  remember  he  was 
not  the  only  man  who  loved  me,  that  he  might  think  a 
certain  Duchess  very  charming,  but  that  he  ought  to 
have  found  her  out  by  that  time,  and  reminding  him 
that  he  had  seen  me  in  a  bath  in  Davies-street. 

At  this  point  the  trial  was  again  adjourned  till  this 
morning,  and  is  likely  to  last  the  whole  of  the  day,  if 
not  longer. 


SECOND   DAY. 

The  trial  of  Sarah  Rachel  Levison,  better  known  as 
Madame  Rachel,  begun  on  Monday,  on  the  charge  of 
obtaining  from  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile,  by  certain  false 
and  fraudulent  pretences,  the  sum  of  £1,400  with  intent 
to  defraud,  was  resumed  this  morning  on  the  opening  of 
the  Court. 

The  public  interest  in  the  case  has  rather  increased 
than  otherwise,  and  at  times  during  tne  day  the  atmos- 
phere of  the  court,  from  overcrowding,  was  almost  in- 
supportable. Many  of  the  audience,  as  before,  were 
ladies.  Lord  Ranelagh  was  again  present,  and  occupied 
a  seat  at  a  side  bench, 

Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine  (with  whom  were  Mr. 
Montagu  Williams  and  Mr.  Straight)  conducted  the 
prosecution  ;  Mr.  Digby  Seymour,  Q.C.,  Mr.  Serjeant 


35 

Parry,  Mr.  Serjeant  Sleigh,  and  Mr.  Butler  Rigby  the 
defence. 

Mrs.  Borradaile,  the  prosecutrix,  whose  cross- 
examination  had  lasted  throughout  the  whole  of  Tues- 
day, was  recalled  and  re-examined  by  her  leading 
counsel,  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE.  She  said,  replying 
to  the  questions  put  by  him, — When  I  arrived  in 
London  I  went  to  the  Great  Western  terminus.  I  had 
come  from  Cheltenham.  I  arrived  in  the  evening. 
Occasionally  before  that  I  had  gone  to  the  Great 
Western  Hotel,  but  on  that  evening  it  was  rather  full. 
I  could  only  get  a  room  on  the  first  floor,  and  that  I 
thought  was  too  expensive  for  me.  I  was  told  I  could 
get  lodgings  at  Lovejoy's,  and  I  went  there,  remaining 
about  six  days.  So  far  as  I  know,  it  was  a  respectable 
house.  I  had  been  recommended  to  go  there.  From 
Lovejoy's  I  went  to  a  coffee  house,  owing  to  a  dispute  I 
had  with  him.  I  asked  him  to  change  a  £10  note  for 
me,  and  he  did  so.  It  was  late  in  the  evening,  and  he 
sent  me  up  the  change.  He  afterwards  said  he  thought, 
on  counting  his  money,  that  he  had  sent  me  up  £12, 
instead  of  £10.  I  replied  I  was  sure  I  had  not  re- 
ceived more  than  £10.  I  left  in  consequence.  A 
druggist  in  the  neighbourhood,  to  whom  I  applied,  sent 
for  a  cab  for  me,  and  I  asked  a  railway  porter  to  take 
me  to  a  respectable  lodging.  He  took  me  to  4,  Francis- 
street,  where  I  remained  four  days.  There  I  only  occu- 
pied only  one  room,  paying  2s.  a  day  for  it,  I  think.  No 
one  visited  me  at  either  Lovejoy's  or  the  house  in 
Francis-street,  and  as  to  Francis-street,  there  was  cer- 
tainly nothing  to  induce  me  to  believe  that  I  was  living 
in  an  improper  house.  I  think  I  saw  Madame  Rachel 
the  day  after  I  arrived  in  London.  I  went  to  see  her. 

It  was  about  that  time  that  the  letter  to  Mr.  Edwardes 
was  written  ;  but  I  never  recollect  directing  a  letter  in 
that  way  to  Mr.  Edwardes.  The  writing  looks  certainly 
like  mine,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  so.  It  is  dated  from 
4,  Francis-street.  I  never  wrote  a  letter  from  Francis- 
street. 


Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Have  you  any  idea  at  all 
how  Madame  Rachel  has  been  enabled  to  produce  these 
letters — I  mean  those  directed  to  "  William,"  which  you 
supposed  you  were  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh  ? 

Witness. — Not  at  all,  except  that  she  kept  them.  I 
had  supposed  they  were  always  delivered  to  the  person 
for  whom  they  were  intended,  and  until  the  last  trial  I 
had  not  the  least  idea  that  those  letters  were  in  her 
possession.  She  told  me  about  letters,  but  I  had  na 
idea  they  were  the  letters  that  I  supposed  had  been 
delivered. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — You  have  said  all  the 
letters  you  wrote  in  connexion  with  this  matter  were 
written  at  the  dictation  of  Madame  Rachel. 

Witness. — Yes,  every  one,  except  two,  which  she 
thought  were  not  well  written,  and  she  told  me  to  take 
them  to  George-street  and  copy  them,  which  I  did. 
Witness  continued, — In  Madame  Rachel's  house  there 
is  a  small  parlour  communicating  with  the  shop.  I  have 
seen  her  daughter  Rachel  there,  and  her  granddaughter, 
Miss  Leonti.  I  think  the  daughter  told  me  she  was 
upwards  of  50  years  of  age,  and  Madame  Rachel  told 
me  she  herself  was  30.  I  cannot  tell  you  whether  that 
was  a  young  lady  who  said  she  was  past  50  "  they  are 
so  made  up."  (A  laugh.)  Miss  Leonti,  her  grand- 
daughter, is  a  young  woman.  The  granddaughter  was 
always  there.  I  have  seen  Leonti  write,  and  I  think  I 
might  know  her  writing  if  I  saw  it  again. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — You  have  said  Madame 
Rachel  was  in  the  habit  of  dictating  to  you  what  you 
should  write. 

Witness. — Yes. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Explain  now  what  occur- 
red, and  whether  anybody  was  present. 

Witness.  —  It  was  always  in  the  evening,  when  the 
shop  was  shut  up.  There  was  a  servant-man  there 
named  Hendry,  who  has  seen  me  write  ;  and  Leonti 
has  seen  me  write.  Madame  Rachel  never  allowed  any 
one  to  be  present  when  I  was  writing,  but  they  have 


37 

gone  in  and  out  when  I  was  so  engaged.  I  have  also 
written  some  letters  at  50,  Maddox-street,  which  I  think 
she  told  me  was  her  daughter's  house.  Leonti  has  seen 
me  write  letters  there,  I  used  to  be  writing  very  late 
at  Madame  Rachel's — sometimes  as  late  as  11  o'clock. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — While  you  were  lodging 
at  the  house  of  Mr.  Smith  did  anybody  visit  you  there? 

Witness. — No  one,  except  Mr.  Cope,  my  brother-in- 
law  and  one  or  two  solicitors. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Did  you  see  any  one  re- 
presented as  "William?" — No;  I  know  no  one  so  called. 

Witness  continued. — Leonti  was  generally  at  her 
mother's  house,  but  she  was  always  at  her  grandmother's 
when  her  grandmother  was  out  of  town.  She  was  there 
often  also  when  her  grandmother  was  in  town.  The 
servant-man,  Hendry,  was  also  there.  On  one  occasion 
I  gave  him  a  letter  I  had  copied  to  be  handed  to 
Madame  Rachel.  It  was  the  letter  directed  to  Captain 
William  Edwardes. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Had  you  any  communi- 
cation with  any  man  at  Madame  Rachel's,  except  the 
slight  communication  with  Lord  Ranelagh  ? 

Witness. — No,  not  one  ;  never. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — During  the  whole  time 
you  were  in  the  habit  of  going  to  Madame  Rachel's, 
have  you  ever  walked  about  the  streets  or  gone  to 
coffeehouses  with  any  man  whatever  ? 

Witness. — No  ;  not  with  any  man  at  any  coffeehouse, 
nor  have  I  had  communication  with  any  man,  except 
such  as  I  have  told  you,  and  that  I  say  on  my  solemn 
oath.  Witness  continued, — I  have  looked  at  a  great 
many  letters  which  have  been  read,  and  they  are  mostly 
in  my  handwriting.  Of  some  I  have  a  recollection  of 
their  contents,  of  others  I  have  not.  When  I  wrote  the 
letters  I  trusted  to  her  (Rachel).  That  is  how  I  wrote 
them.  Madame  Rachel  used  to  give  me  whisky.  That 
was  before  I  wrote  the  letters.  I  had  never  taken 
whisky  before,  and  have  never  since.  I  think  she 
generally  gave  me  whisky  before  I  wrote  the  letters. 

D  2 


38 

Not  that  I  think  that  there  was  anything  in  the  whisky. 
It  was  proper  whisky,  because  I  saw  her  take  it  herself. 
I  have  mentioned  the  whisky  to  several  people  before 
this. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Never  in  your  evidence. 

Witness. — I  mentioned  the  matter  to  Mr.  Lewis,  my 
solicitor,  and  also  to  Mr.  Montagu  Williams,  I  think. 
I  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  taking  spirits  before.  I 
used  to  take  brandy  and  soda-water  by  a  doctor's  advice, 
but  very  little  of  that. 

By  the  COMMISSIONER. — I  don't  know  whether  this 
was  whisky  or  not.  I  was  told  by  her  it  was  whisky, 
and  I  have  heard  her  send  for  whisky.  I  took  it  in 
little  liqueur  glasses.  Madame  Rachel  said  it  had  done 
her  a  great  deal  of  good.  She  dictated,  and  I  wrote. 

Witness  continued  her  re-examination. — I  have  seen 
a  young  man  named  Horace  writing  there  in  1866.  She 
had  a  boy  named  Williams,  who  also  used  to  write.  He 
copied  the  letter  that  was  sent  to  Mr.  Cope,  my  brother- 
in-law,  in  North  Wales.  From  Francis-street  I  went 
to  George-street,  and  remained  there  a  little  more  than 
three  months.  Thence  I  went  to  36,  Davies-street  for 
a  fortnight,  and  then  to  7,  George -street,  where  I  re- 
mained till  the  prosecution  was  begun  —  nearly  two 
years.  I  had  been  living  very  economically.  I  paid  a 
guinea  a  week  for  my  lodgings,  and  I  am  sure  my  clothes 
in  the  year  did  not  cost  me  £20.  At  first  I  took  my 
dinner  at  the  Scotch  Stores,  but  on  Mr.  Smith,  my  land- 
lord, suggesting  that  it  was  not  a  very  fit  place  for  a 
lady  to  dine  at,  I  took  dinner  at  his  house.  Never  at 
the  Scotch  Stores,  nor  at  any  of  the  lodging  houses  at 
which  I  stayed  during  the  whole  time  I  was  in  London, 
had  I  any  companion.  I  have  said  I  took  about  100 
baths.  It  may  not  have  been  so  many.  I  paid  for  them. 
All  that  I  had  for  my  £1,000  was  some  soap,  some 
powders,  and  something  to  put  in  the  bath. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Was  that  "  dew  from 
Arabia?"  (A  laugh.) 

Witness. — I  believe  it  was  some  magnetic  water. 


39 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Did  it  produce  any  effect? 

Witness. — Madame  Rachel  may  be  clever  with  res- 
pect to  theskin,but  sheneverdid  much  for  me.  (Laughter.) 
That  was  all  I  had  for  £1,000.  I  afterwards  parted  with 
other  sums  of  money.  The  history  of  the  photograph 
mentioned  in  one  of  my  letters  is  this  : — It  was  the 
photograph  of  Lord  Ranelagh,  which  I  purchased  at  a 
shop  in  Regent-street,  and  which  I  hung  up  in  my  bed- 
room in  George-street,  Hanover-square.  It  had  been 
hanging  there  about  a  fortnight.  I  told  Rachel  I  had 
it. 

Then  how  did  it  happen  that,  if  you  had  it  hanging 
in  your  bedroom,  you  took  it  into  your  head  to  remove 
it  to  a  warmer  position — namely,  into  bed  to  you  ? 
(Great  laughter,  in  which  the  witness  joined  heartily.) 
There  is  no  harm,  you  know,  in  having  a  photograph  in 
bed  with  you  (more  laughter) ;  but  what  I  want  to 
learn  from  you  is,  did  anybody  suggest  to  you  that  you 
should  take  it  into  bed  ?— No  ;  it  was  my  own  sugges- 
tion. 

When  you  mentioned  to  Rachel  the  fact  of  its  re- 
moval from  the  wall  to  the  bed,  did  she  say  anything  ? — 
Yes ;  she  said,  "  When  next  you  are  writing  to  Lord 
Ranelagh  don't  forget  to  tell  him  that  you  took  it  to 
bed  to  you."  (Laughter.)  When  I  noticed  the  bad 
spelling  in  the  first  letter  of  Lord  Ranelagh  which  con- 
tained it,  I  said  to  Rachel  that  I  would  refuse  to  take 
any  more  letters  from  him  which  were  badly  spelt. 
Rachel  then  explained  that  the  letter  would  not  have 
been  mis-spelt  if  Lord  Ranelagh  had  not  hurt  his  arm 
and  been  obliged  to  employ  an  ignorant  amanuensis. 
In  love  letters  ladies  usually  only  sign  their  Christian 
names,  but  I  signed  mine  "  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile  "  in 
full,  because  I  was  so  foolish. 

Now,  here  is  a  letter  in  which  you  say  that  after  you 
had  one  of  your  baths  at  Rachel's  you  went  to  a  coffee- 
house opposite  to  ask  whether  a  gentleman  had  been 
inquiring  for  you.  How  was  that  ? — Rachel  told  me 
to  go  to  the  coffeehouse  and  make  the  inquiry.  I  went 
and  made  it,  but  did  not  go  inside  the  door,  as  I  saw 
several  gentlemen  there. 


40 

You  have  been  asked  whether  Kachel  spoke  to  you 
about  spending  money  upon  a  paramour.  Did  you 
spend  any  money  upon  a  paramour  ? — Never. 

Did  you  ever  post  your  letters  to  Lord  Ranelagh  ? — 
No  ;  I  addressed  them  to  him  either  at  Birdcage-walk, 
New  Bond-street,  or  the  Carlton  Club,  and  handed 
them  to  Rachel,  who  was  to  have  them  delivered  to 
him.  She  said  I  was  to  be  married  to  him  by  proxy, 
that  the  courtship  was  to  be  carried  on  by  letter,  and 
that  she  had  lately  married  two  couples  by  proxy.  I 
certainly  wrote  in  one  of  my  letters  that  not  one  of  my 
family  would  hold  any  communication  with  me,  but  that 
is  not  true,  and  I  cannot  account  for  writing  such  a 
letter.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Cope  and  others  of  my  relations 
are  in  court,  and  they  will  all  tell  you  that  not  one  of 
them  ever  reproached  me  or  refused  to  hold  any  com- 
munication with  me  for  having  formed  a  degrading 
connexion  with  Lord  Ranelagh.  I  would  not  have  con- 
sidered a  connexion  with  his  lordship  degrading.  I 
never  formed  a  degrading  connexion  with  any  one.  I 
again  repeat  that  I  cannot  account  for  writing  such 
a  letter.  I  never  recollect  writing  such  a  sentence 
in  it  as  this  : — "  It  is  well  known  in  Pembrokeshire  that 
I  have  been  living  with  you  for  some  months."  It  is 
not  true  that  I  had  been  living  with  him  or  with  any 
one  for  months.  My  daughter  was  always  with  me  in 
Wales,  and  must  have  seen  me  living  with  Lord  Rane- 
lagh  if  there  had  been  any  truth  in  the  allegation.  I 
repeat  that  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  foundation  for 
saying  that  I  had  been  living  with  any  one  in  Pem- 
brokeshire or  anywhere  else. 

Can  you  in  any  way  account  for  writing  such  a  letter? 
—I  cannot ;  I  must  have  been  a  lunatic  to  write  it. 

And  you  are  not  a  lunatic,  I  believe  ?  (A  laugh.) — I 
think  not.  I  have  been  a  virtuous,  prudent  woman  all 
my  life,  and  never  lived  with  any  man  ;  and  I  can  only 
account  for  these  letters  by  supposing  that  they  were 
written  by  somebody  else.  I  have  already  stated  that 
I  met  a  Mr.  O'Keefe  in  Paris  for  the  first  time.  There 


41 

is  no  truth  in  the  insinuation  that  I  have  lived  with  a 
son  of  his. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — I  think  the  insinuation  was  that 
she  had  been  living  with  Mr.  O'Keefe  himself,  not  with 
his  son. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Yes,  that  was  the  insinuation. 

Examination  continued. — I  never  knew  Stephens,  the 
Head  Centre  of  the  Fenians,  although  I  appear  to  have 
made  some  mention  of  him  in  one  of  my  letters.  I 
recollect  Rachel  speaking  to  me  about  the  Fenians,  and 
telling  me  that  Stephens  was  Lord  Ranelagh's  servant. 
(Laughter.)  I  do  not  remember  writing  to  his  lordship 
and  saying  that  I  was  glad  he  had  not  mixed  himself  up 
with  the  Fenians.  The  letter  in  which  that  is  said  is 
like  many  of  the  others.  I  cannot  explain  them.  There 
is  a  letter  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  me  to 
Lord  Ranelagli,  in  which  I  say, — "  I  feel  better  now 
since  you  are  leaving  Charing-cross  to  morrow  ;  will 
that  to-morrow  ever  come  ?"  I  recollect  writing  the 
words  "  Charing-cross  ;"  but  I  can  only  judge  of  the 
letter  being  mine  by  recognising  those  words.  I  was 
handed  a  letter  by  Rachel  which  contained  initials  at 
the  top.  She  told  me  those  were  the  initials  of  Lord 
Ranelagh. 

The  COMMISSIONER  (looking  at  the  letter). — But  they 
are  not  his  initials,  and  the  word  "  Charing "  in  the 
other  letter  is  not  correctly  spelt. 

Examination  continued. — When  I  was  told  that  my 
pension  would  be  stopped  if  I  married  I  was  induced  to 
hand  the  £1,600  bond  to  Rachel,  giving  her  a  mortgage 
on  it.  I  think  I  may  have  written  ten  letters  to  "Tom" 
as  Lord  Ranelagh.  I  may  have  written  others.  Madame 
Rachel  asked  me  for  the  letters  written  to  me  by  my 
late  husband.  I  gave  them  to  her  and  never  got  them 
back  since.  The  reason  I  wrote  to  "  dear  Tom ;'  was 
because  Madame  Rachel  said  I  was  now  oft'  with 
William,  and  that  I  must  commence  with  "  dear  Tom." 
(Laughter.)  I  wrote  almost  all  the  letters  to  Lord 
Ranelagh  at  Rachel's  house.  Some  of  them  I  wrote  at 


42 

Maddox-street  in  Leonti's  presence.  Leonti  was  in 
court  yesterday.  There  is  this  passage  in  the  letter 
now  produced  : — "  The  Marquis  of  Hastings  lost  all  in 
one  day  more  than  my  poor  William  ever  had  to  lose." 
I  did  not  know  anything  about  the  Marquis  of  Hastings 
or  his  fortune.  In  the  letter  it  is  said  : — "  If  you  (Lord 
Ranelagh)  have  not  taken  the  cough  mixture,  take  it." 
(A  laugh.)  I  heard  at  that  time  he  had  a  cold.  I  never 
borrowed  any  money  from  Rachel.  There  was  an  ac- 
count produced  on  the  last  occasion,  the  authenticity  of 
the  handwriting  of  which  I  then  denied.,  I  still  deny 
its  authenticity.  It  is  there  said  that  I  received  £500 
from  her.  That  is  an  absolute  fabrication.  These1 
receipts  for  £50,  £200,  £10,  £18,  £85,  £80,  £70  are  all 
fabrications.  I  never  received  any  portion  of  those 
moneys,  and  if  the  receipts  are  in  my  handwriting,  I 
cannot  account  for  them.  There  are  other  receipts  pur- 
porting to  be  given  by  me  to  Rachel  for  further  sums, 
and  for  £50  alleged  to  have  been  paid  by  her  for  under- 
clothing for  me.  The  entire  of  these  amounts  comes  to 
£2,200,  and  I  solemly  swear,  upon  my  oath,  that  not 
one  single  sixpence  of  that  sum  did  I  ever  receive. 

By  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — on  the  last  occasion  there 
might  have  been  a  letter  put  in  written  by  me  to  Mr. 
Haynes  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  £700  from  Rachel, 
but  a  farthing  of  that  I  never  received. 

Did  you  not  say  on  the  last  occasion  that  this  long 
account  of  money  owing  and  money  received  by  you 
was  in  your  handwriting  ? — I  said  then  what  I  say  now, 
that  I  have  no  recollection  of  writing  it,  but  that  part  of 
it  appears  to  be  in  my  writing  and  part  not. 

I  ask  you  again  on  your  oath — ? — don't  be  so  con- 
stantly reminding  me  of  my  oath. 

The  Serjeant  has  asked  you  upon  your  oath  a  dozen 
times — Well,  I  don't  like  it ;  I  know  I  am  on  my  oath. 

The  COMMISSIONER  requested  the  prosecutrix  to  con- 
tinue to  give  her  evidence  without  telling  the  counsel 
how  he  was  to  shape  his  questions. 

To  Mr.  DIGDY  SEYMOUR,— The  figures  "  £700,"  and 


43 

"  £1,600,"  in  the  account  are  not  like  my  handwriting. 
Others  of  the  figures  are  like  it.  The  "  £85,"  is  some- 
thing like  it.  The  "5"  of  the  "£500,"  looks  like  it ; 
the  others  are  not  at  all  like  it.  The  "  £85,"  is  something 
like  it.  Madame  Rachel  said  something  to  me  about 
her  keeping  an  account  with  me.  I  asked  her  what  she 
meant  by  that.  That  was  in  1866.  There  is  mention 
made  in  the  account  about  some  underclothing  having 
been  purchased  for  me  Rachel  told  me  that  £50.  worth 
of  underclothing  had  been  purchased  for  me  from  a 
shopkeeper  named  Himus.  She  further  told  me  that 
she  had  purchased  £30  more  of  underclothing  for  me 
from  Himus.  If  Rachel  has  been  compelled  to  pay  that 
£30  since  she  has  been  in  Newgate  I  can  only  say  that 
I  knew  nothing  about  it,  I  did  not  receive  any  under- 
clothing from  her,  but  I  admit  that  she  was  to  purchase 
all  the  clothing  necessary  for  my  marriage.  I  may  have 
said  that  I  wrote  one  of  the  letters  to  Lord  Ranelagh 
which  was  produced  at  the  Marlborough  Police-court, 
because  I  had  nothing  better  to  do. 

To  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  swear  positively  I 
never  received  any  underclothing  whatever  from  Madame 
Rachel.  I  never  received  the  tenth  part  of  a  shilling 
from  her.  (A  laugh.) 

To  the  COMMISSIONER. — I  have  said  that  I  often  saw 
Leonti  write,  and  that  her  handwriting  is  not  unlike 
mine. 

The  prisoner  here  said  she  had  sent  for  her  daughter, 
and  that  she  could  be  examined  as  a  witness  in  disproof 
of  the  prosecutrix  if  it  were  wished. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  requested  of  the  prisoner  to  leave 
the  conduct  of  her  case  in  his  hands. 

Prosecutrix  to  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — I  may  have  said 
on  the  last  occasion  that  one  of  the  receipts  was  in  my 
handwriting,  that  I  had  never  received  a  shilling  from 
Rachel,  and  that  she  had  dictated  the  receipt,  and  had 
immense  influence  over  me.  The  receipt  I  then  ac- 
knowledged, because  I  thought  at  that  time,  and  still 
think,  the  handwriting  to  be  like  mine,  was  for  £500. 


44 

I  think  I  wrote  the  letter  of  the  21st  of  September, 
1866,  now  produced,  authorising  Kachel  to  dispose  of 
all  the  property  of  mine  she  had  in  her  possession,  but 
if  she  did  dispose  of  it  I  never  had  a  farthing  of  the 
proceeds,  neither  had  I  any  portion  of  the  £500  men- 
tioned in  the  receipt. 

Mr.  Joseph  Haynes,  called  and  examined  by  Mr. 
Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  am  a  solicitor  in  St.  James- 
street,  and  the  mortgagee  of  the  house  in  which  Madame 
Kachel  lived,  at  the  corner  of  New  Bond-street.  I  had 
never  acted  as  her  solicitor.  In  the  June  of  1866  she 
brought  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  my  chambers,  and  on  the 
llth  or  13th  of  June  I  acted  as  the  latter's  solicitor. 
Rachel  said  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  owed  her  some  money 
— I  do  not  recollect  how  much — and  there  was  an  ap- 
pointment made  to  go  into  the  City  to  sell  out  her  stock. 
Rachel  then  only  owed  me  one  quarter's  rent — £62  10s. 
That  was  due  from  the  preceding  March.  A  carriage 
was  sent  for  me.  I  went  in  it  to  Rachel's,  where  I 
found  Mrs.  Borradaile,  and  the  result  was  a  visit  to  the 
City,  when  there  was  a  sale  of  Mrs.  Borradaile's  stock. 
That  sale  produced  a  sum  of  £963.  2s.  lid.  A  check 
for  that  amount  was  given  to  me  by  the  stock-broker, 
and  I  paid  that  into  my  banker's.  That  was  on  June  6, 
1866.  On  the  same  day  that  I  received  the  check  from 
the  stockbroker  I  gave  Rachel  a  check  for  £550.  I 
have  made  a  mistake  in  saying  that  Rachel  only  owed 
me  a  quarter's  rent  in  March.  The  fact  is,  she  then 
owed  me  half  a  year's  rent,  and  I  believe  it  was  in  con- 
sequence of  my  applying  for  the  payment  of  that  rent 
that  she  brought  down  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  my  office  to 
sell  the  stock.  I  recouped  myself  for  the  half-year's 
rent  out  of  the  balance  of  the  £960,  after  giving  Rachel 
the  check  for  the  £550.  The  rent  for  the  half-year  came 
to  £125,  but  then  on  the  21st  of  the  same  month  (June) 
there  was  another  quarter's  rent  due,  so  I  charged 
Madame  Rachel  for  that  quarter  also — £62.  10s. 

In  point  of  fact,  then,  in  the  matter  of  her  rent,  you 
appear  to  have  taken  tolerably  good  care  of  yourself  (a 


45 

laugh),  for  altogether  you  kept  for  nine  months'  rent 
£187.  10s.  What  was  to  become  of  the  balance  ?— The 
balance  was  to  be  retained  in  an  account  between  me 
and  Rachel. 

You  were,  I  suppose,  to  retain  that  balance — some 
£70  or  so — as  a  satisfaction  for  her  future  rent  ? — I 
was. 

So  that  out  of  the  money  Rachel  was  to  have  you 
kept  about  £250  for  yourself  for  the  rent  ?— Yes. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  did  not  get  a  farthing  out  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  of  her  stock  ? — I  do. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — It  appears  that  we  have 
made  some  mistake  about  these  figures.  You  say  the 
stock  sold  for  £960.  Out  of  that  you  gave  Rachel  a 
check  for  £550,  and  you  kept  £250  for  the  rent.  That 
leaves  a  balance  of  about  £160.  What  became  of  that  ? 
• — I  gave  an  acknowledgment  for  that,  and  after  a  sub- 
sequent settlement  Rachel  told  me  that  she  had  paid 
that  £160.  to  Mrs.  Borradaile. 

Well,  now,  that  was  the  first  transaction.  The  second 
I  believe,  was  on  the  14th  of  June,  when  Mrs.  Borradaile 
called  on  you  again.  Was  she  alone  ? — She  was. 

What  did  she  want  ? — She  was  then  being  sued  for 
debts,  and  in  order  to  release  her  from  them  I  sold  the 
reversion  of  her  estate  through  the  Reversionary  Society. 

When  did  you  do  that  ?— In  August,  1866. 

What  did  you  raise  for  her  on  the  reversion  deed  ? — I 
raised  a  sum  of  £1,340. 

What  did  you  do  after  that  ? — I  sent  in  an  account  on 
the  15th  of  September  to  Mrs.  Borradaile,  in  which  I 
included  a  sum  of  £1,400  alleged  to  have  been  paid  to 
Rachel  on  the  13th  of  August,  1866. 

How  could  that  be  ?  How  could  you  pay  £1,400  to 
Rachel  out  of  the  reversion  of  £1,340  ? — Because  Mrs. 
Borradaile  called  at  my  office  and  paid  over  to  my  clerk 
£60  the  difference  between  the  £1,340  and  the  £1,400 
and  that  £1,400  was  paid  over  to  Rachel  as  I  understood, 
in  discharge  of  the  debt  which  Mrs.  Borradaile  owed 
her. 


46 

Then  was  that  £1,400  paid  to  Kachel  at  that  time  ?— - 
Not  exactly. 

How  was  it  paid  ? — In  anticipation  of  receiving  the 
money  from  the  sale  of  the  reversion  I  advanced  Rachel 
on  the  24th  of  August,  £40. 

What  did  she  say  upon  that  occasion  ? — That  as  Mrs. 
Borradaile  owed  herjmoney,  and  that  as  I  was  raising 
money  for  her  upon  the  sale  of  the  reversion,  she  asked 
me  if  I  would  let  her  have  £40. 

Go  on.  What  more  did  you  give  her  ? — On  the  30th 
of  August  I  gave  her  a  cheque  for  £20,  and  on  the  31st 
of  August  I  gave  her  another  check  for  £200. 

May  I  ask  what  became  of  the  £1,340,  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  ? — Oh,  that  had  been  paid  into  my  banker's 
in  the  first  instance. 

Go  on  with  your  payments  to  Kachel. — I  had  an  order 
to  pay  Eachel  the  whole  of  the  £1,400  and  my  next 
payment  to  her  was  on  the  1st  of  September,  when  I 

fave  her  a  check  for  £220.  On  the  15th  of  September 
gave  her  a  check  for  £150,  and  on  the  same  day 
another  check  for  £120. 

Now,  was  Mrs.  Borradaile  arrested  about  that  time? — 
Afterwards  she  was. 

Yes,  but  was  she  not  arrested  in  July  for  a  sum  of 
£50?— She  was.  On  the  27th  of  September  I  gave 
Eachel  another  cheque  for  £100,  and  on  the  29th  of 
September,  quarter-day,  I  put  down  £62  10s.  for  the 
rent. 

What,  more  rent  ?  (Laughter.)  I  thought  you  had 
got  the  entire  year's  rent  before.  What  did  you  pay  in 
cash  to  Eachel  ? — That  I  cannot  exactly  say,  for  I  had 
an  account  of  the  sums  paid  to  her  in  cash,  which,  as 
she  was  unable  to  read  or  write,  she  took  away  to  get 
receipted  and  she  never  brought  it  back.  On  December 
8th  I  paid  her  £5,  and  on  January  23rd  I  gave  her  a 
check  for  £272.  There  was  then  a  balance  of  £147  in 
my  hands,  and  that  was  subsequently  arranged  between 
her  and  me. 

What  do  you  mean  ?  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you 
paid  that  money  to  her  ? — I  do. 


47 

At  all  events,  whatever  you  paid  her,  Mrs.  Borradaile 
never  received  a  farthing  ? — Not  a  farthing. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Did  you  never  ask  if  she  had 
any  claim  of  any  kind  ? — I  did,  but  I  always  understood 
that  Rachel  had  been  paying  away  money  for  her,  and 
that  the  checks  I  was  giving  to  Kachel  went  to  reim- 
burse her  for  the  money  so  paid. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Did  you  ever  of  your  own 
knowledge,  find  out  that  Kachel  had  advanced  a  single 
farthing  for  Mrs.  Borradaile  ? — I  did  not  of  my  own 
knowledge  find  that  out ;  but  Eachel  has  herself  told 
me  that  she  had  advanced  money  on  Mrs.  Borradaile's 
behalf,  and  that  she  had  advanced  it  to  Captain  William 
Edwardes,  Mrs.  Borradaile's  cousin. 

Did  she  say  how  much  she  had  advanced  ? — She  did 
not. 

Did  you  ask  her  ? — I  did,  and  I  told  her  she  would 
be  brought  to  an  account  some  day  for  these  advances. 

What  did  she  say  to  that  ? — She  said  that  she  had  re- 
ceipts for  all  the  money  she  had  advanced  to  Captain  Ed- 
wardes and  others  on  Mrs.  Borradaile's  behalf.  In  fact, 
I  understood  from  the  conversation  that  Eachel  was  a 
sort  of  private  banker  for  Mrs.  Borradaile. 

Her  private  banker?  How  could  you  think  that?  What! 
to  make  a  private  banker  of  a  woman  who  couldn't  pay 
her  quarter's  rent !  Could  you  for  a  moment  believe  that 
a  lady  like  Mrs.  Borradaile  would  make  a  perfumer  her 
banker  ?  (A  laugh.)  But  go  on. — Well,  as  I  have  said, 
the  £1,340  had  been  received  in  respect  of  a  portion  of 
the  Streatham  Estate.  There  remained,  however, 
another  portion  of  that  estate  belonging  to  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile upon  which  a  further  sum  could  be  raised,  and 
accordingly  that  portion  was  sold  for  £1,380.  That  sum 
was  paid  to  me  by  the  sellers  in  two  checks,  which  I 
passed  into  my  banker's.  A  cash  account  was  rendered 
which  showed  that  there  was  a  balance  of  £544  10s.  4d. 
owing  to  me. 

Explain  how  that  balance  was  brought  out  ?  It  was 
brought  out  in  this  way  : — I  had  paid  various  sums  on 


48 

account  of  Mrs.  Borradaile.  The  first  I  paid  was  a 
debt  and  costs  against  her  of  £153,  she  having  given  an 
acceptance  in  June,  1866,  upon  which  she  was  sued. 
I  then  paid  £11  6s.  4d.,  being  the  amount  of  costs  in  an 
action  brought  against  her  by  a  Mr.  Hamilton ;  and 
bear  in  mind  that  none  of  these  were  my  costs,  but  that 
they  were  those  of  the  solicitors  to  the  execution  of  the 
suits.  Then  I  paid  £100  on  her  account  to  a  Mr.  Pike. 
She  had  given  Mr.  Pike  an  acceptance  for  £160 
for  some  diamonds,  and  I  got  him  to  cancel  the  trans- 
action with  her  for  £100  he  keeping  his  diamonds,  with 
which,  indeed,  he  had  never  parted. 

I,  take  it,  then  that  Mr.  Pike  was  all  right ;  he  had 
his  diamonds — the  wedding  diamonds  I  suppose — and 
he  received  £100  for  nothing.  (Laughter.)  But  pro- 
ceed with  the  story,  what  next  did  you  pay  ?  I  next 
paid  £100  on  her  behalf  to  a  Mr.  Moore,  a  laceman, 
being  the  balance  of  an  account  owing  by  her  for  lace. 

Do  you  recollect  what  was  the  original  amount  owing 
for  that  lace  ? — Yes,  the  original  amount  was  £384 ;  but 
payments  had  been  made,  and  the  balance  at  last  was 
reduced  to  £100. 

That  accounts  for  £554  out  of  the  £1,480  ;  what 
became  of  the  rest  ? — I  paid  over  £700  of  the  rest  by 
Mrs.  Borradaile's  orders,  or  at  her  request  to  Madame 
Rachel.  Part  of  the  £700  was  paid  to  Rachel  on  the 
24th  of  April,  in  two  checks — one  for  £500  and  the 
other  for  £60.  On  the  25th  of  March  I  debited  her  for 
another  quarter's  rent. 

What !  rent  again !  (Great  laughter.)  Why,  that 
is  the  fifth  quarter's  rent,  as  I  calculate  it,  that  you 
charged  her  for.  I  suppose  that  came  to  £6:3  10s.,  as 
before  ? — It  did,  and  finally  there  remained  a  balance  of 
£27,  which  has  since  been  laid  out  by  me  on  Eachel's 
account.  Almost  all  the  checks  I  gave  her  were  made 
payable  to  order.  The  largest  check  was  for  £270, 
and  that  was  neither  crossed  nor  was  it  made  payable 
to  order  or  to  bearer. 


49 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Well,  but  I  suppose  it  has  some 
sort  of  a  banker's  mark  upon  it. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  cannot  discern  any 
mark  upon  is,  but  perhaps  as  your  Lordship  is  more 
conversant  with  checks  than  I  am  (laughter),  you  can 
see  something  on  it  which  I  cannot. 

The  COMMISSIONER,  having  held  it  up  between  him 
and  the  windows,  said  the  banker's  mark  upon  it  was 
plainly  visible. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — The  first 
time  I  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  on  the  fifth  of  June, 
1866.  She  then  told  me  she  owed  Kachel  about  £800., 
and  that  she  wished  me  to  sell  out  her  stock  to  pay  it. 
She  said  there  was  money  due  by  her  upon  an  ac- 
ceptance to  Hamilton,  which  she  would  require  to  be 
given  up  when  the  £800  was  paid.  Hamilton  was 
afterwards  settled  with.  There  was  nothing  said  as  to 
how  the  £800  had  originated.  Mrs.  Borradaile  said  she 
was  owing  money  to  Rachel  on  I  O  U's  and  bills. 

A  long  discussion  here  arose  between  counsel  on  both 
sides  as  to  whether  Mr.  Digby  Seymour  could  cross- 
examine  the  witness  on  points  which  had  not  been 
alluded  to  on  the  direct  examination.  Mr.  Digby  Sey- 
mour, of  course,  alleged  that  this  was  a  right  which  he 
possessed,  and  that,  in  fact,  the  privilege  of  counsel 
would  be  at  an  end  if  a  witness  like  Mr.  Haynes  pro- 
duced on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  were  to  be  allowed 
to  tell  all  he  knew  against  the  prisoner,  and  if  he  were 
to  be  prevented  from  answering  any  question  which 
would  tend  to  exculpate  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Serjeant  PARRY  followed  on  the  same  side,  con- 
tending that  whatever  had  occurred  between  Mrs. 
Borradaile  and  the  witness  in  conversation  ought  fairly 
to  be  elicited  on  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  argued  that  the  cross«- 
examination  must  be  confined  to  the  matters  which  had 
come  out  in  the  direct  examination. 

The  COMMISSIONER  agreed  with  Mr.  Serjeant  Ballan- 
tine  ;  but  said  he  should  consult  the  learned  Judge  in 


50 

the  Old  Court,  Mr.  Justice  Keating,  who  had  had  more 
experience  in  these  matters  than  himself,  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

Accordingly,  the  COMMISSIONER,  having  retired  for 
this  purpose,  said,  on  his  return,  that  the  learned  Judge 
was  of  opinion  that  the  view  taken  by  Mr.  Digby  Sey- 
mour was  substantially  correct,  and  that  he  had  a  light 
to  cross-examine  the  witness  on  all  the  matters 
brought  out  on  the  direct  examination  by  the  prose- 
cution. The  cross-examination,  however,  must  pro- 
ceed upon  the  answers  the  witness  gave,  not  upon 
any  voluntary  statement  he  might  choose  to  make, 
because  a  voluntary  statement  might  lead  to  the  in- 
troduction of  new  matter.  In  the  present  case  Mrs. 
Borradaile  must  be  looked  upon  as  a  witness,  not  as 
the  prosecutrix,  the  Queen  being  the  prosecutrix,  and 
any  conversations  between  Mrs.  Borradaile  and  Mr. 
Haynes  (if  they  were  not  privileged  in  right  of  his  being 
an  attorney)  he  might  be  cross-examined  upon.  He 
believed  these  were  legal  points  which  Mr.  Serjeant 
Ballantine  would  not  dispute. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Oh!  certainly  not.  lam 
always  unwilling  to  be  as  strict  at  a  criminal  trial  as  I 
might  be  at  Nisi  Prim. 

Witness,  in  continuation  to  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — 
Afterwards  Mrs.  Borradaile  told  me  orally  and  in 
writing  what  had  become  of  the  bills  and  I  O  U's  she 
he  had  given  to  Kachel.  In  writing  she  said  that  had 
found  out  that  Rachel  had  paid  1,400/.  on  her  account, 
for  which  she  (Rachel)  held  bills  and  receipts.  I  have  a 
long  list  of  letters  here,  written  by  Mrs.  Borradaile,  in 
which  she  makes  some  general  allusions  to  the  accounts 
between  herself  and  Rachel  '  In  one  of  these  she 
informed  me  that  she  had  settled  with  Rachel,  and  that 
she  would  trouble  me  to  sell  out  a  portion  of  her 
estate  to  complete  that  settlement.  I  produce  an 
authority  also  from  her  with  reference  to  other  parts  I 
took  in  the  management  of  her  transactions.  I  have  a 


51 

letter  by  Madame  Rachel  to  myself  respecting  the 
delivery  of  the  box  of  letters  (letter  read) ;  and  also 
one  from  Mrs.  Borradaile.  I  had  several;  interviews 
with  Mr.  Cridland  between  December,  1866,  and  April 
of  the  present  year.  I  first  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  in 
June.  Upon  that  occasion  she  said  nothing  with  refer- 
ence to  her  proposed  marriage  She  was  alone  when 
she  gave  me  instructions  with  reference  to  the  bills  and 
the  money,  and  upon  her  directions  I  acted.  She  ap- 
peared to  understand  perfectly  what  she  was  doing. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  Mrs.  Borradaile  at  any 
time  say  anything  to  you  about  Captain  William 
Edwardes, 

Witness. — She  did ;  it  was  in  answer  to  my  remark 
why  she  was  spending  so  large  a  sum  in  diamonds. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  Mrs.  Borradaile  tell  you 
that  she  was  going  to  marry  her  cousin,  Captain 
William  Edwardes  ? 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  objected  to  this  and  other 
questions,  and  a  legal  argument  ensued. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  she  say  so  with  reference 
to  the  matter  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Witness. — I  was  told  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  that  she 
was  going  to  marry  her  cousin;  she  said  this  more 
particularly  with  reference  to  the  diamonds.  I  had 
asked  her  why  she  was  paying  for  such  an  extravagant 
thing  as  a  set  of  diamonds  while  she  was  being  sued  for 
a  debt  of  £70  or  £80.  She  then  said  she  was  going  to 
marry  her  cousin.  Madame  Rachel  and  Mrs.  Borradaile 
were  together  at  my  office  on  other  occasions.  I 
remember  reference  being  made  in  one  of  the  letters  to 
a  scene  that  occurred  there. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Can  you  tell  us  what  it  was 
about  ? 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Was  there  a  scene  ? 

Witness. — Yes,  a  violent  one. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Do  you  remember  what  was 
said? 

Witness. — Madame   Kachel  was  remonstrating  with 

E 


52 

Mrs.  Borradaile  as  to  her  general  extravagance,  when 
she  became  angry.     I  can  give  you  the  reason. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  would  rather  you  did 
not.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUK. — Can  you  recollect  what  was 
said? 

Witness. — The  word  "  paramour"  was  used,  and  I  was 
astonished  to  hear  it.  Madame  Eachel  said,  "You 
know  you  have  been  spending  your  money  recklessly 
upon  your  paramour." 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  Mrs.  Borradaile  make 
any  reply. 

Witness. — She  did  not. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Had  you  previously  acted  as 
the  solicitor  for  Madame  Eachel  ? 

Witness. — No  ;  I  had  not  received  a  shilling  at  that 
time  on  account. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Have  you  a  cash  account  ? 

Witness. — It  is  on  a  sheet  of  paper  which  Madame 
Rachel  has.  I  have  no  other.  On  that  paper  I  entered 
the  moneys  paid  from  time  to  time.  I  have  no  book  or 
any  other  record  of  them.  I  might  be  able  to  make 
up  an  account  from  my  banker's  book,  perhaps.  I  lent 
the  paper  to  Madame  Rachel,  and  unfortunately  she 
has  it.  I  paid  about  £50  or  £60  in  cash  to  Madame 
Rachel  ;  the  rest  in  checks.  I  have  no  other  acknow- 
ledgment for  the  payments  except  what  appears  on  the 
sheet  of  paper  in  question.  When  she  received  the 
money  she  used  to  put  her  mark  to  it.  I  was  not 
satisfied  with  that,  and  gave  her  the  paper  to  get  her 
signature  attached.  I  expected  she  would  have  got  her 
daughter  to  sign  it. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Then  if  she  chose  she  could 
have  burnt  the  paper  or  destroyed  it.  Had  she  done 
so  should  you  have  had  any  other  entry  or  memorandum 
to  refer  to  ? 

Witness. — I  could  have  referred  to  the  checks  that 
were  paid.     I  can  produce  them  to  morrow. 
.     Mr.   DIGBY    SEYMOUR    asked  that  they  might   be 


53 

produced.  There  was  a  check  for  £270.  payable  to 
bearer.  Was  there  any  other  acknowledgment  of  the 
payment  of  that  check  ? 

Witness.-  Nothing  but  what  appears  on  the  sheet 
of  paper,  Madame  Eachel  said  that  she  wanted  the 
money  to  send  to  Paris,  and  I  gave  her  the  check  on 
the  Union  Bank,  where  I  believe,  she  obtained  the 
money.  The  banker's  books  will  show  the  notes  that 
were  paid. 

He-examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — In  the 
letter  of  the  21st  of  September  allusion  is  made  to  a  per- 
son whom  Mrs.  Borradaile  styled  "  my  friend."  Whom 
did  you  understand  by  that  ? 

Witness. — T  have  no  knowledge.  I  had  an  idea,  but 
it  might  have  been  an  erroneous  one. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Did  you  think  it  was  to 
her  cousin,  Captain  William  Edwardes,  that  she  was 
going  to  be  married  ? 

Witness, — I  did. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — And  that  the  £1,400 
had  been  expended  in  the  diamonds,  with  a  view  to  her 
marriage  with  him  ? 

Witness. — Yes. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Will  you  allow  me  now  to 
call  your  attention  to  a  paragraph  in  your  bill  of  costs, 
which  is  dated  September  28th,  18G6 — "  Attending  you 
when  you  stated  that  Madame  Rachel  had  deceived  you 
by  stating  that  she  had  paid  £1,400  on  your  own 
account  to  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  advising  you  thereon." 
(Produced.)  How  do  you  account  for  the  name  of  Lord 
Ranelagh  being  there  ? 

Witness. — It  was  mentioned  either  by  Mrs.  Borradaile 
or  Madame  Rachel.  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  complained 
of  the  money  being  borrowed  for  Lord  Ranelagh.  It 
was  previously  to  this  that  I  thought  she  was  going  to 
be  married  to  Captain  Edwardes.  After  then  I  thought 
it  was  Lord  Ranelagh.  It  might  have  been  mentioned 
on  more  occasions  than  one. 

James  Minton,  a  youth,  an  assistant  to  a  linen  draper 

E2 


54 

in  Holborn  Bars,  examined  by  Mr.  STRAIGHT. — I  first 
saw  Madame  Rachel  at  47a,  New  Bond-street.  It  was  in 
a  back  room.  Her  daughter  was  there.  I  went  several 
times  in  an  evening  when  I  was  in  the  employ  of  Mr. 
Taylor,  an  auctioneer,  for  the  purpose  of  writing  letters 
for  her.  I  wrote  several  according  to  her  dictation,  and 
others  I  copied.  She  sat  by  me  and  told  me  what  I  was 
to  write.  There  was  a  young  man  present  whose  name  I 
understood  was  Edward.  I  heard  Madame  Rachel  call 
him  by  that  name.  I  remember  having  a  letter  given  to 
me  to  copy  in  January  or  February,  1867.  Edward  was 
present  at  the  time.  After  I  had  finished  copying  it, 
Madame  Rachel  said  the  writing  was  like  a  schoolboy's. 
She  showed  the  letter  to  Edward,  who  said  he  could 
make  a  better  one  himself,  and  he  folded  it  up  and  put 
it  in  his  pocket.  I  recognise  the  letter  (produced  and 
read).  I  went  there  about  a  dozen  times  altogether.  I 
wrote  a  letter  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  asking  for  money. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — I  was 
examined  at  the  Marlborough-street  Police-court.  I 
know  a  person  named  O'Keefe.  He  did  not  speak  to 
me  then.  I  was  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Cridland,  the 
solicitor  once  before  the  case  came  on.  I  saw  the 
letters  for  the  first  time  at  the  office  of  Messrs.  Lewis 
in  Ely-place  previously  to  the  first  trial.  I  did  not  read 
the  whole  of  the  report  of  the  examination  at  Marl- 
borough-street.  I  merely  read  my  own  evidence.  I 
did  not  make  any  memorandum  of  the  evidence  I  was 
about  to  give  there.  Something  "might  have  been 
written  by  me  in  pencil  in  a  pocket  book,  but  I  thiifk  it 
is  merely  the  time  when  I  attended  the  police  court,  and 
when  I  was  to  go  again.  I  was  asked  by  Mr.  Cridland's 
clerk  to  state  how  I  became  introduced  to  Madame 
Kachel,  in  order  that  he  might  fill  up  the  brief.  I 
believe  that  I  supplied  it  in  pencil,  and  left  it  with  him. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  you  not  make  five  pages 
in  pencil  of  the  evidence  you  proposed  to  give  at  the 
Marlborough-street  police-court  ? 

Witness. — I  do  know  that  I  did,  but  I  will  not  swear 
to  it. 


55 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — You  say  you  can  tell  me  how 
I  got  those  leaves  ? 

Witness. — I  saw  something  had  been  torn  from  my 
pocketbook,  and  my  mother  told  me  she  had  given  it  to 
a  gentleman  who  had  called  to  get  a  specimen  of  my 
handwriting.  He  had  told  her  that  he  could  get  me  a 
good  situation,  that  he  had  come  up  from  the  country  a 
long  distance  that  morning  and  wished  to  see  me.  My 
mother  said  I  was  absent  at  business,  and  he  then  asked 
for  a  specimen  of  my  writing.  She  saw  that  my  pocket- 
book  was  lying  about,  and  she  told  him  that  was  the 
only  thing  she  could  find.  He  said  that  it  would  not 
make  any  difference  so  long  as  it  was  my  writing.  She 
then  gave  him  the  pocket-book.  He  looked  at  it  and 
abstracted  some  of  the  leaves.  He  declined  to  leave 
his  address,  and  said  that  the  situation  would  be  in  an 
architect's  office.  I  took  my  pocket-book  with  me  when 
I  went  to  the  office  of  Mr.  Cridland.  I  might  have  left 
it  open  on  the  table  beside  my  hat.  I  am  not  sure 
whether  the  clerk  did  not  write  in  it.  It  is  just  like 
what  I  told  the  lawyer  in  Lincoln's-inn-fields  ;  it  is 
nearly  word  for  word  the  same. 

Ee-examined  by  Serjeant  BALLANTIXE. — The  leaves 
were  taken  from  the  book  before  the  last  trial,  but 
nothing  was  said  about  them  then.  I  am  sure  they  have 
never  been  returned  to  me.  I  can  produce  the  pocket- 
book  to-morrow,  and  my  mother  can  attend  most  likely. 
I  have  never  had  any  quarrel  or  dispute  with  Madame 
Rachel,  and  I  nothing  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  whatever. 

The  trial  was  then  again  adjourned  till  this  morning. 

THIRD  DAY. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Court  again  this  morning  at  10 
o'clock  the  trial,  which  commenced  on  Monday,  of 
Sarah  Rachel  Leverson,  better  known  as  Madame 
Rachel,  on  the  charge  of  obtaining  from  Mary  Tucker 
Borradaile  moneys  to  the  amount  of  about  £1,400  by 
certain  false  and  fraudulent  pretences,  and  with  intent 
to  defraud,  was  resumed. 


56 

As  on  the  previous  day  every  available  seat  in  the 
Court  room  was  occupied,  and  even  those  on  the  bench 
were  at  times  inconveniently  crowded.  A  considerable 
part  of  the  audience,  as  before,  was  composed  of  ladies. 
Lord  Ranelagh,  who  had  been  summoned  as  a  witness, 
was  again  in  attendance. 

The  prisoner  took  her  place  in  the  dock  a  few  minutes 
after  10  o'clock,  and  was  again  allowed  to  sit.  She 
appeared  in  much  better  health  than  on  any  previous 
occasion  during  this  or  the  last  trial. 

Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine  (with  whom  were  Mr.  Mon- 
tagu Williams  and  Mr.  Straight)  conducted  the  prose- 
cution ;  Mr.  Digby  Seymour,  Mr.  Serjeant  Parry,  Mr. 
Serjeant  Sleigh,  and  Mr.  Butler  Rigby,  the  defence. 

At  the  outset,  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR,  addressing  the 
Court,  suggested  that  it  would  be  desirable,  in  the 
interests  of  justice,  that  the  jury  at  the  end  of  the  day 
should  be  afforded  an  opportunity  of  inspecting  the 
premises  of  Madame  Rachel,  in  order  to  understand  the 
structural  arrangements  of  the  house. 

Upon  this  suggestion  some  discussion  arose,  in  the 
course  of  which  the  COMMISSIONER  said  the  jury  might 
have  a  plan  of  the  premises  if  they  wished  it,  but  that 
he  never  before  heard  in  a  criminal  case  of  an  applica- 
tion for  a  view.  There  was,  at  the  same  time,  he  said, 
nothing  to  prevent  an  individual  juryman,  or  even  the 
whole  body,  if  they  wished,  going  of  their  own  option 
to  see  the  premises  at  the  close  of  the  day. 

Mrs.  Mary  Ann  Minton  was  then  called  and  examined 
by  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE.  She  said  she  was  the 
mother  of  the  lad  of  that  name  called  as  a  witness  on 
the  previous  day,  and  remembered  a  person  calling  at 
her  house  before  the  last  trial,  and  taking  some  leaves 
from  a  pocket-book  he  had  asked  to  see.  She  did  not 
see  what  was  written  on  those  leaves,  and  she  had  not 
seen  them  since.  They  had  not  been  brought  back. 
The  book  produced  was  not  the  pocket-book,  it  was 
older  than  the  one  produced. 

The  boy  Minton  was  recalled  by  Mr.  Serjeant  BAL- 


57 

LANTINE,  and  said  the  book  which  had  been  shown  to 
his  mother  was  the  same  book  to  which  he  had  referred 
in  his  evidence  on  the  previous  day. 

Replying  to  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR,  he  said  he  bought 
the  book  about  the  Saturday  previous  to  his  first  exa- 
mination at  Marlborough- street  Police-court;  that 
leaves  upon  there  might  have  been  writing,  and  very 
likely  was,  had  been  since  taken  out  of  the  book  by  a 
man,  and  that  the  leaves  produced  were  in  his  (wit- 
ness's) handwriting.  There  was  a  stroke  of  black  ink 
at  the  top  of  the  front  leaf  which  he  did  not  remember, 
and  would  not  swear  it  was  not  made  at  Mr.  Cridland's 
office. 

To  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Since  yesterday  he  had 
made  inquiries,  and  now  remembered  he  had  written 
what  appeared  on  the  leaves  after  his  examination  at  the 
Marlborough-street  Police-court  to  refresh  his  memory. 
He  had  spoken  on  the  subject  to  his  father,  who  had 
reminded  him  of  having  done  so. 

Colonel  William  Edwardes  was  called  by  Mr.  MON- 
TAGU WILLIAMS. — He  said  in  1867  he  was  a  captain,  and 
was  promoted  in  March  of  that  year  to  the  rank  of 
colonel  in  the  Coldstream  Guards.  Mrs.  Borradaile  was 
distantly  connected  with  his  family,  through  a  branch 
dating  from  many  generations  back.  In  1866  he  never 
communicated  with  her  by  letter  or  word  of  mouth. 
He  forgot  whether  he  had  seen  her  in  that  year  in 
Wales,  but  he  thought  he  had  not.  He  said,  emphati- 
cally, he  had  never  received  one  shilling  from  Mr. 
Haynes  or  from  anybody  connected  with  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile. He  never  knew  anything  of  the  matter  until  he 
read  the  report  of  the  first  proceedings  at  Marlborough- 
street,  and  then  he  conferred  with  his  solicitors.  He 
never  set  eyes  on  Madame  Rachel  until  he  saw  her  a 
prisoner  in  the  dock  of  this  court  on  the  former  trial. 

To  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR — He  spelt  his  name  Ed- 
wardes. There  was  no  other  Captain  William  Edwardes 
-but  himself  in  1866,  so  far  as  he  knew. 

Mr.   Alexander   Cope,    examined   by  Mr.    Serjeant 


58 

BALLANTINE. — I  am  brother-in-law  of  Mrs.  Borradaile. 
I  am  of  no  profession.  I  live  in  Flintshire,  North  Wales, 
and  am  a  magistrate  of  the  county  and  chairman  of 
petty  sessions.  I  visited  my  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile, in  London,  while  she  was  staying  at  Mr.  Smith's. 
I  came  up  for  that  purpose  on  Saturday,  the  1st  of 
September,  1866,  and  went  on  the  following  Monday  to 
Madame  Rachel's,  accompanied  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  and 
my  wife.  We  arrived  there  about  12  o'clock  in  the  day. 
Madame  Rachel  shook  hands  with  Mrs.  Borradaile  and 
also  with  my  wife.  She  wished  to  do  so  with  me  but  I 
declined.  (A  laugh.)  She  then  said  she  wished  a  pri- 
vate interview.  I  replied,  "  Certainly  not."  Madame 
Rachel  said  she  was  sorry  she  could  not  receive  us  then. 
I  am  not  quite  sure  whether  I  told  her  then  or  subse- 
quently what  business  I  had  come  upon.  She  asked  us 
to  call  again  at  2  o'clock.  We  did  so,  and  I  then  im- 
mediately asked  Madame  Rachel  for  what  purpose  she 
had  received  such  large  sums,  and  if  there  was  any  truth 
as  to  the  introduction  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  Lord  Rane- 
lagh.  She  said  she  knew  nothing  at  all  about  it,  upon 
which  there  was  an  exclamation  on  the  part  of  Mrs. 
Borradaile  and  my  wife.  I  then  merely  said  we  had 
better  leave  and  put  the  matter  into  the  hands  of  a 
solicitor.  She  said  she  knew  nothing  at  all  about  the 
money.  We  accordingly  left  with  that  view.  We  were 
only  in  the  shop  about  five  or  six  minutes.  Nothing 
else  was  said  about  the  subject  of  money  by  the  prisoner 
in  my  presence. 

By  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — As  far  as  my  recollection 
serves  me,  those  were  the  exact  words.  It  must  have 
been  from  what  I  heard  that  I  asked  about  the  intro- 
duction and  receipt  of  large  sums  of  money  on  her  part. 
I  returned  to  Wales  the  same  Monday  evening.  On  the 
following  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  I  received  a  commu- 
nication from  Madame  Rachel  by  post. 

The  letter  containing  the  enclosure  was  then  put  in 
and  read.  It  was  dated  "  47 'A,  New  Bond-street,  Sep- 
tember, 1866,"  and  in  it  Madame  Rachel  said  it  was  her 


59 

duty  to  inform  him  that  after  he  left  London  on  the  pre- 
vious day  she  was  led  to  understand  by  Mrs.  Borradaile 
that  she  had  given  him  her  word  of  honour  not  to  hold 
any  further  communication  with  her  until  she  had  con- 
sulted Mr.  Haynes,  and  that  she  should  remove  from 
George-street  at  once  ;  that  she  (Madame  K-achel)  had 
explained  to  her  the  importance  of  her  consulting  her 
solicitor  that  morning,  for  her  own  sake  as  well  as  her 
(Rachel's),  after  what  she  said  about  her  in  his  (Mr. 
Cope's)  presence  on  the  previous  day,  but  that  she  had 
retused  up  to  that  time.  Madame  Rachel  went  on  to  say 
in  the  letter  he  (witness)  would  please  to  remember  that 
it  had  been  said  the  people  in  the  house  and  she  had 
formed  a  league  against  Mrs.  Borradaile,  but  that  so  far 
from  that  being  so  she  assured  him  she  did  not  know 
the  people  ;  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  requested  a  youth  in 
her  (Rachel's)  employ  to  obtain  lodgings  for  her  on  the 
previous  evening,  and  that  he  got  her  apartments  in 
Davies-street,  to  which  she  went ;  that  Mrs.  Borradaile 
was  aware  there  was  a  judgment  out  against  her  on  a 
bill  of  exchange  she  had  given  to  a  dealer  in  lace. 
Madame  Rachel  concluded  by  saying  she  enclosed  him 
(Mr.  Cope)  a  copy  of  a  letter  signed  by  Mrs.  Borradaile 
to  her  lover,  to  .the  original  of  which  he  was  quite 
welcome,  and  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  led  her  to  believe 
for  six  months  that  she  was  to  be  married  to  her  cousin, 
Captain  William  Edwardes. 

To  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — On  the  receipt  of  that 
letter  and  enclosure,  I  came  up  to  town  and  saw  Mrs. 
Borradaile,  to  whom  I  showed  the  enclosure,  and  asked 
if  she  had  really  written  the  original,  and  she  said  she 
had.  On  the  previous  Monday,  when  I  saw  Madame 
Rachel,  she  made  no  allusion  to  Mr.  Haynes  nor  to  any 
other  lover  but  Lord  Ranelagh.  When  Mrs.  Borradaile 
said  she  had  written  the  original  of  the  enclosure  I, 
asked  what  had  induced  her  to  do  so.  She  said  she 
was  under  the  magnetic  influence  of  Madame  Rachel, 
and  that  she  wrote  it  to  her  dictation. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Madame  Rachel  says  in 


60 

a  statement  of  accounts  I  hold  in  my  hand  that  on  the 
1st  of  September,  1866,  that  being  the  clay  on  which 
you  first  came  up  to  London,  she  lent  £700  to  your 
sister-in-law. 

Witness. — She  says  so  according  [to  that  statement, 
but  not  a  word  was  said  about  such  a  loan  when  I  saw 
her  on  the  following  Monday. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  observed  that  on  his  examination 
on  the  first  trial  the  witness  had  said  nothing  about 
"  magnetic  influence." 

Witness  said  he  believed  he  had  used  these  words  on 
his  first  examination ;  he  had  not  the  slightest  doubt 
that  he  had. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE,  speaking  from  recollection, 
thought  the  witness  had  not,  and  that  he  was  under  a 
mistake  in  believing  that  he  had. 

Mr.  Thomas  William  O'Keefe  was  next  called.  Being 
apparently  in  weak  health  he  was  allowed  to  sit  while 
giving  his  evidence. 

He  said,  replying  to  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE,  I  have 
been  staying  in  Paris  for  nine  or  ten  weeks.  I  saw  a 
report  of  the  proceedings  in  this  case  in  Tuesday's 
paper.  I  am  not  subpoened  on  either  side,  but  in  con- 
sequence of  seeing  my  name  in  the  paper  E  come  for- 
ward voluntarily.  There  was  never  any  improper 
connexion  of  any  kind  between  Mrs.  Borradaile  and 
me. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — Your  son's  name  has  also 
been  mentioned.  Let  us  know  something  about  your- 
self and  your  family. 

Witness. — I  have  a  son,  and  he  is  in  Ireland.  He 
has  not  been  in  this  country  for  three  years  and  five 
months.  I  had  another  son  who  died  15  years  ago — 
my  eldest  son.  My  other  son  is  married  and  has  five 
children ;  he  is  about  34  years  of  age  and  extremely 
delicate  looking. 

j  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  (quoting) — He  is  not  "a, 
dark,  tall,  half-military,  half-sporting  looking  man  with 
a  moustache  ?" — Nothing  of  the  kind. 


61 

Has  he  worn  a  black  moustache  lately  ? — Never ;  he 
is  very  fair. 

Witness  continued. — I  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  for  the 
first  time  in  April  last.  I  found  her  staying  in  the  Rue 
Castiglione,  one  of  the  most  respectable  streets  in  Paris. 
I  presented  a  letter  of  introduction  to  her,  and  that 
brought  her  back  to  London. 

To  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR,  in  cross-examination. — I  have 
never  been  to  Madame  Rachel's  in  my  life.  I  never 
heard  of  such  persons  as  Cradock,  or  Crabbe,  or  Houston, 
nor  ever  saw  them.  I  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  first  in  Paris. 
I  had  a  communication  with  her  in  London  about  this 
trial.  I  had  twice  an  interview  with  her  in  Paris  and  I 
recommended  her  to  come  to  London  and  contradict 
certain  scandalous  rumours  that  had  been  spread  about 
her.  I  was  not  then  aware  that  civil  proceedings  had 
been  taken  against  her. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  you  ever  suggest  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile  that  she  would  be  able  to  make  better  terms 
by  criminal  than  civil  proceedings  ? 

Witness. — I  did  nothing  of  the  sort.  I  recommended 
her,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Cridland,  to  take  criminal 
proceedings  against  her  (Rachel),  but  I  said  nothing 
about  terms.  I  believe  I  said  it  would  be  the  best  way 
of  recovering  her  property. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Have  you  had  any  experience 
in  your  own  career  of  the  use  of  criminal  proceedings 
in  enabling  a  person  to  recover  money  ? 

Witness. — Now,  I  know  what  you  refer  to.  Some  15 
years  ago  I  was  tried  in  this  court  for  obtaining  money 
from  a  lady  under  a  promise  of  marriage.  I  was  found 
guilty  by  the  jury,  but  the  learned  Recorder  discharged 
me  on  my  own  recognizances,  and  shortly  afterwards  the 
lady  made  a  confession  on  oath  that  her  charge  was  not 
true.  [A  voice  in  court — "  That's  not  true."]  Mr. 
Serjeant  Parry  was  my  counsel  on  that  occasion. 

Did  you  pay  back  any  money  ? — I  paid  back  what 
they  considered  was  advanced — £100.  I  think  it  a 
cruel  thing  to  introduce  this  subject,  for  she  is  a  respec- 
table married  lady. 


62 

You  made  some  restitution  and  the  jury  found  you 
guilty  ? — The  jury  found  me  guilty ;  the  lady  fully  ex- 
onerated me  in  the  court,  as  did  also  the  Recorder. 

Was  there  any  order  for  you  to  pay  £20  a  year  ?— 
Nothing  of  the  sort. 

Where  did  the  lady  make  that  oath  ? — She  made  it  in 
the  presence  of  a  solicitor,  Mr.  Wontner,  I  think,  and 
in  some  court.  I  could  produce  the  document,  if 
necessary.  It  is  in  Paris. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — We  must  have  it. 

Witness  continued  in  cross-examination. — I  saw  the 
boy  Minton  in  the  police-court  at  Marlborough-street, 
but  never  before.  Upon  my  oath  I  believe  I  did  not 
speak  to  Minton  before  he  gave  his  evidence  at  Marl- 
borough-street.  I  am  not  bound  to  swear  where  I  am 
in  doubt.  I  know  a  Miss  Sutton,  and  have  known  her 
a  long  time.  She  gave  me  a  letter  of  introduction  to 
Mrs.  Borradaile  in  Paris.  I  have  heard  she  made  Mrs. 
Borradaile's  acquaintance  in  Whitecross-street  debtors* 
prison.  I  saw  Miss  Sutton  very  often  at  various  places, 
and  sometimes  in  my  own  house.  She  used  to  call  there 
on  business  once  or  twice  a  week.  Mrs.  Borradaile  has 
been  at  my  house  once  or  twice,  and  I  think  Miss  Sutton 
was  there  once  when  she  called.  Miss  Sutton  has  taken 
care  of  my  house  while  I  have  been  in  Paris.  It  is  a 
furnished  house.  I  was  so  ill  in  Paris  that  I  sent  to 
London  for  my  own  servant,  and  Miss  Sutton  took  care 
of  my  house  afterwards.  I  know  Mrs.  O'Donoghue, 
the  widow  of  one  of  the  proposed  bail  for  Madame 
Rachel.  Her  husband  was  bail  for  a  short  time  She 
lives  near  the  Olympic  Theatre,  I  think  in  Wych-street. 
I  went  to  her  house  to  ascertain  whether  Mr.  O'Donoghue 
was  good  bail,  and  I  found  him  to  be  a  respectable  man 
I  recommended  him  to  Mr.  Cridland  has  good  bail. 
That  was  for  £1,000.  I  had  some  conversation  with 
Mrs.  O'Donoghue  when  I  went  there.  She  told  me  that 
she  knew  Madame  Rachel.  I  said  to  her  I  thought  it  a 
great  pity  Madame  Rachel  should  be  so  foolish  as  to 
defend  so  bad  a  case,  and  that  I  should  advise  her 


husband  not  to  be  bail.  I  said  nothing  about  terms  at 
all,  nor  about  a  compromise.  I  suggested  that  it  was 
Madame  Rachel's  duty  to  pay  Mrs.  Borradaile.  It  was 
a  natural  conclusion  that  if  she  paid,  the  criminal  pro- 
ceedings would  cease.  The  amount  was  not  mentioned. 
I  said  she  had  better  settle  the  action  with  Mr.  Cridland. 
I  understood  Mr.  Cridland  had  a  judgment  against  her 
for  the  amount  in  a  civil  action. 

By  the  COMMISSIONER. — I  meant  that  she  should  pay 
on  the  action,  not  on  the  criminal  proceedings. 

To  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — I  think  it  was  after  pro- 
ceeding at  Maiiborough-street  that  I  said  it  would  be 
better  for  her  to  pay,  but  I  am  not  sure,  Madame 
Rachel  was  then  under  commitment  for  trial.  Mrs. 
Borradaile  was  not  aware  of  my  interview  with  Mrs. 
O'Donoghue.  I  do  not  know  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  was 
indisposed  to  prosecute  if  she  could  get  her  money. 
Since  the  prosecution  she  has  told  me  she  pitied  Madame 
Rachel,  and  very  much  regretted  it.  I  did  not  mean  to 
convey  to  Mrs.  O'Donoghue  that  by  coming  to  a  settle- 
ment the  criminal  proceeding  would  be  abandoned.  My 
impression  was  that  if  Madame  Rachel  was  bailed  she 
would  never  appear  to  stand  her  trial,  and  I  cautioned 
and  advised  Mrs.  O'Donoghue  not  to  let  her  husband 
become  bail. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Did  you  imagine  Madame 
Rachel  would  settle  a  civil  claim  when  a  criminal  pro- 
ceeding was  pending  against  her  ? — I  thought  it  advi- 
sable for  her  to  do  so. 

By  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  had  not  the  smallest 
authority  from  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  say  anything  to  Mrs. 
O'Donoghue.  I  did  it  out  of  good  nature. 

The  witness,  as  he  was  about  to  leave  the  box,  said, 
addressing  the  Court,  that  as  his  character  had  been  at 
stake  in  reference  to  the  criminal  prosecution  to  which 
he  was  subjected  some  years  ago,  he  would  bind  himself 
to  produce  the  document  to  which  he  had  referred,  not 
for  his  own  sake-,  as  a  man  of  the  world,  but  having 
regard  to  the  society  in  which  he  moved. 


64 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Have  you  ever  paid  more  of 
the  money  than  £20? — I  was  discharged  from  that  debt. 
I  will  not  answer  the  question.  The  witness  retired. 

Miss  Sarah  Sutton  was  next  called.  She  said,  reply- 
ing to  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  am  in  the  literary 
profession.  I  met  Mrs.  Borradaile  in  Whitecross-street 
Debtor's  Prison,  where  I  saw  her  for  the  first  time.  I 
was  liable  at  that  time  for  a  lady  to  whom  I  had  given  a 
power  of  attorney  to  save  her  a  large  amount  of  money, 
and  she  did  not  pay  at  the  time,  though  she  paid  after- 
wards. I  was  in  Whitecross-street  a  fortnight  or  three 
weeks.  Mrs.  Borradaile  there  made  a  communication 
to  me  about  Madame  Eachel.  I  have  known  Mr.  O'Keefe 
for  several  years,  and  it  was  through  me  that  Mrs. 
-Borradaile  became  acquainted  with  him.  I  gave  her  a 
letter  of  introduction  to  him  in  Paris.  Prior  to  that  I 
had  never  seen  Madame  Eachel  but  once.  Mrs. 
Borradaile,  who  was  then  about  to  leave  town,  had  asked 
me  to  accompany  her  to  Madame  Rachel's  to  ask  her  to 
-supply  her  with  some  things  for  which  she  had  paid  her 
a  large  sum  of  money,  and  I  went  there  with  her.  I 
believe  they  were  cosmetics,  clothes,  and  other  articles. 
Madame  Eachel  said  she  would  send  them.  Mrs. 
Borradaile  said  to  her  "  When  are  you  going  to  get 
me  the  money  Lord  Eanelagh  owes  me  ?"  Madame 
Eachel  said,  turning  to  me,  "Lord  Eanelagh  has 
not  had  any  of  her  money ;  has  she  told  you  that 
he  had  ?"  I  said,  "  Yes."  Madame  Eachel  said, 
"  Her  William  has  had  her  money,  and  he  will  not 
allow  her  to  leave  town.  He  has  been  walking  back- 
ward and  forward  outside  for  the  last  two  hours."  I 
asked  Mrs.  Borradaile  what  all  that  meant  She 
replied  '•  That  horrid  wicked  woman  has  been  deceiving 
you.  There  is  no  William ;  Lord  Eanelagh  is  the  man," 
Madame  Eachel  appeared  confused,  and  said  "  Oh,  no  ; 
it's  your  '  William.'  "  I  said  to  Madame  Eachel  "  I  think 
you  are  both  in  love  with  Lord  Eanelagh — one  lending 
him  her  money,  and  the  other  screening  him  from  pay- 
ment." (A  laugh.)  Mrs.  Borradaile  said  several  times 


65 

there  was  no  William,  that  Madame  Rachel  was  telling 
stories,  and  was  a  homed,  wicked  woman.  I  asked 
Madame  Rachel  to  call  William  in  and  let  me  see  him. 
She  replied — "  Oh,  my  dear  madam,  I  cannot  do  that ; 
I  never  tell  my  ladies  little  intrigues."  She  did  not  call 
him  in.  We  then  left,  and  when  I  got  outside  I  looked 
all  round.  Mrs.  Borradaile  asked  what  I  was  looking 
for.  I  never  saw  anybody  looking  for  her.  I  accom- 
panied her  home  to  George-street,  and  stayed  with  her 
two  hours.  I  have  seen  a  great  deal  of  her  since 
January  last. 

By  the  COMMISSIONER. — I  have  not  been  examined 
before,  though  I  have  been  subpcened  on  both  trials. 

The  witness  was  not  cross-examined. 

Mr.  Joseph  Pike. — I  am  a  jeweller  at  136,  New 
Bond-street.  I  remember  Mrs.  Borradaile  coming  to 
my  shop  about  1866,  in  May,  June,  and  July  con- 
tinuously. No  one  came  with  her.  I  remember  her 
ordering  a  diamond  necklace  and  tiara.  That  was,  I 
think,  in  the  early  part  of  June,  1866.  I  afterwards 
went  to  47  A  New  Bond-street,  and  there  I  saw  Mrs. 
Borradaile  and  Madame  Rachel.  In  the  first  instance 
I  understood  there  was  a  to  be  marriage,  and  was  asked  to 
take  some  diamonds  there.  Mrs.  Borradaile  told  me 
that  in  the  presence  of  Madame  Rachel.  I  went  and 
brought  the  diamonds,  and  showed  them  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  Madame  Rachel  was  present,  and  the 
diamonds  were  ultimately  ordered  by  Mrs.  Borradaile, 
and  formally  delivered.  I  had  them  on  hand  a  con- 
siderable time,  and  I  got  £100  for  cancelling  the 
transaction. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Mrs.  Borradaile  came  alone 
to  my  place  after  that,  and  I  think  she  examined  some 
diamonds.  She  took  a  look  round  as  ladies  will  do. 
She  appeared  to  understand  what  she  was  about,  and 
to  be  a  shrewd  woman  of  business. 

Mr.  William  Procter,  examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant 
B  ALLAN  TINE. — I  am  a  draper,  and  supplied  goods  to 
Mrs.  Borradaile  in  May,  1866.  They  amounted  to 


66 

£150,  which  she  paid  me.     They  were  sent  to  47a,  New 
Bond-street.     Some  of  them  were  wedding  goods. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — Mrs.  Bor- 
radaile  selected  them,  and  appeared  to  be  a  woman  of 
business. 

Lord  Ranelagh,  examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLAN- 
TINE. — I  remember  seeing  Mrs.  Borradaile  on  two 
occasions — once  at  Rachel's,  where  I  was  introduced  to 
her  by  the  prisoner.  I  never  had  the  slightest  intention 
to  marry  her.  I  never  sent  her  a  vinaigrette  or  any 
article  belonging  to  any  relation  of  mine.  I  do  not 
know  the  person  so  frequently  alluded  to  here  by 
the  name  of  William,  and  I  never  gave  Rachel  any 
advice  or  information  about  William.  Every  single 
word  in  the  letters  read  in  this  case,  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, is  false.  I  kept  a  man-servant  in  1866  named 
-Long.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  given 
Mrs.  Borradaile  my  card. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR. — I  most 
solemnly  declare  that  I  never  gave  her  my  card.  On 
the  top  of  one  of  the  letters  produced  there  is  a  cipher, 
but  it  contains  neither  my  crest  nor  my  monogram. 
The  second  time  I  spoke  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  at  Mr. 
Cridland's  office.  That  was  about  two  years  ago.  I 
cannot  at  this  distance  of  time  recollect  what  I  said  to 
her;  beyond  wishing  her  "  Good  morning."  I  always  go 
for  amusement  to  the  theatricals  at  Beaufort-house. 

Mr.  Smith,  examined. — I  live  at  7,  George  street, 
Hanover-square.  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  apartments  in 
my  house  for  nearly  two  years,  during  which  time  she 
never  had  any  gentlemen  of  any  kind  to  visit  her.  As 
a  general  rule  she  was  in  the  house  every  night  at  9,  10, 
and  sometimes  she  was  out  as  late  as  11.  She  lived 
very  economically. 

Cross-examined. — She  came  home  one  night  about  12. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE  here  announced  that  this 
was  the  case  for  the  prosecution. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMouR^said  the  witnesses  he  proposed 


67 

to  call  for  the  defence  would  be  very  short  in  their  evi- 
dence, and  that,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Court  and  the 
learned  serjeant,  he  should  put  them  into  the  box  at 
once,  and  thus  close  the  evidence  on  both  sides, 
this  arrangement  having  been  at  once  assented  to, 
Mr.  William  Henry  Roberts  was  examined  by  Mr. 
Serjeant  PARRY. — I  have,  he  said,  acted  as  attorney  for 
Madame  Rachel  since  the  3rd  of  June  last.  I  was  not 
attorney  for  her  when  she  was  examined  at  the  Marl- 
bdrough-street  police  court.  My  clerk  and  I  have  been 
examining  her  case.  The  whole  of  the  letters  produced 
were  handed  to  me  by  Rachel,  and  have  remained  in  my 
custody.  All  of  them  produced  on  the  last  trial  are 
here  now,  and  were  duly  shown  to  Mr.  Digby  Seymour. 
All  that  was  done  on  the  last  occasion  was  done  at  the 
discretion  of  counsel.  I  employed  a  person  to  ascertain 
if  possible  Minton's  hand-writing,  and  to  make  inquiries 
as  to  his  character,  but  I  never  gave  that  person 
instructions  to  promise  him  a  good  situation. 

Miss  Rachel,  examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  PARRY. — My 
name  is  Rachel  Leverson,  and  I  am  27  years  of  age. 
I  am  the  eldest  daughter  of  the  prisoner.  I  have  a 
sister  named  Leonti.  She  is  20  or  21.  My  mamma 
has  seven  children.  They  are  all  younger  than  me  and 
my  sister.  The  youngest  is  seven  years.  I  have  one 
brother.  In  1866  he  was  at  school.  He  is  now  a 
medical  student  in  Paris.  His  name  is  David.  We 
never  had  any  man  named  -Edwardes  coming  to  our 
house  to  work  in  1866,  or  at  any  other  time.  My  mam- 
ma occupied  the  shop  47a  New  Bond-street.  She  only 
occupied  the  shop  and  a  small  back  room.  The  room 
is  a  very  small  one,  and  the  shop  is  long  and  narrow. 
There  is  a  glass  door  to  the  room  through  which  persons 
can  see  from  the  shop  into  the  room  and  from  the  room 
into  the  shop.  I  remember  Mrs.  Borradaile  coming  to 
our  shop.  She  was  constantly  there,  but  beyond  that 
I  know  nothing  about  her.  So  far  as  I  can  tell,  I 
know  of  no  relation  between  her  and  my  mother.  I 
know  nothing  of  her  except  that  she,  like  other  ladies, 

F 


68 

was  a  customer  of  our  shop.  The  articles  we  sold 
were  very  expensive.  Though  we  kept  the  shop,  we 
resided  at  Blackheath  in  1866  and  1867.  In  Septem- 
ber, 1866,  we  took  a  house,  in  Maddox-street.  That 
was  used  only  as  a  private  house,  and  to  my  knowledge 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  never  at  it.  I  have  never  seen 
her  write. 

I  must  ask  you  as  regards  all  those  letters  signed 
"  William  ;"  do  you  know  anything  at  all  about  them  ? — I 
do  not 

Have  you  ever  written  those  letters  yourself  ? — I 
have  not. 

It  is  said  that  some  of  the  letters  purporting  to  be 
written  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  were  written  by  somebody 
else.  Have  you  ever  done  so  ? — Never. 

Nor  anybody  to  your  knowledge  ? — No.  I  do  not 
recollect  the  introduction  of  Lord  Kanelagh  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  The  boy  Minton  has  never  to  my  know- 
ledge been  employed  by  my  mother  to  write  letters  of 
any  kind.  He  was  in  the  employment  of  an  auctioneer 
named  Taylor.  I  know  of  his  being  turned  out  of  my 
mother's  house  on  one  occasion.  He  used  to  come  to 
our  place  with  messages  from  his  master,  and  as  he  was 
complained  of  upon  more  than  one  occasion  for  his 
impertinence  we  "turned  him  out. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — I  was 
not  examined  at  the  last  trial.  I  was  not  then  in  court, 
except  upon  the  first  day.  I  afterwards  remained  at 
home.  I  think  we  had  the  Maddox-street  house  about 
six  months  before  December,  1866,  but,  as  it  required 
a  great  many  alterations  to  be  made  in  it,  we  did  not 
get  into  possession  until  December.  My  mother  took 
an  opera  box  at  the  commencement  of  the  season  of 
1867.  It  was  a  pit  tier  box  she  took.  I  went  to  Paris 
in  1867.  I  used  to  sleep  at  the  end  of  1866  and  the 
beginning  of  1867  at  Blackheath,  and  sometimes  I  used 
to  go  there  at  late  hours.  My  mother  sometimes 
accompanied  me,  but  not  always.  She  occasionally 
remained  for  the  night  in  London.  She  cannot  write. 


Leonti  generally  wrote  for  her.     There  was  a  boy  in  the 
shop  named  William.     His  age  was  14  or  15.     I  can- 
not tell  what  has  become  of  him.     I  saw  him  last  after 
I  came  from  Paris,  ancl   before  the  last  trial.     I  then 
saw  him  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Boberts,  the  attorney  for 
the   defence.     That   was   after  the   proceedings  at  the 
Marlborough  police  court  in  this  case  had  appeared  in 
the  public  papers.     He  came  into  my  mother's  service 
some  months  before  I  went  to  Paris.     I  cannot  tell 
whether  he   was  there  when  I  went  to  Paris,  nor  do  I 
know  whether  he   is  now  ]  7  years  of  age.     He  looks 
very  young.     I   swear  upon  my  solemn   oath  that  I 
never  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  at  our  place  in  the  evening.  I 
have  often  been  there  in  the  evening  myself,  but  again  1 
swear  that  to  my  knowledge  I  never  saw  her  in  our 
parlour  on  any  evening  whatever.     I  have  already  said 
that  I  have  often  seen  her  there,  but  it  was  always  hi 
the   daytime  she  came.     She  has  been  there   in  the 
parlour  as  well  as  in  the   shop.     It  was  at  the  com- 
mencement of  1867  I  went  to  Paris.     On  my  mother's 
return  from  the  French  capital  I  took  her  place  there 
to  conduct  her  professional  business.     It  is  now  a  very 
long  time  since  I  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile.     I  knew  of  my 
mother  receiving  sums  of  money  on  matters  of  business 
from  Mr.  Haynes,  the  attorney.     Our  shop  was  closed 
at  [7  o'clock  in  the  winter  months,  and  at  a  later  hour 
in  the  summer.     I  do  not  know  of  my  mother  receiving 
any  letters  from  Mrs.  Borradaile,  nor  has  she  ever  told 
me    that   she    has   received    any  from  her.     I  never 
heard  of  my  mother  receiving  any  letters  to  be  given  to 
Mrs.  Borradaile.     My  mamma  was  a  good  deal  at  home. 
Generally  speaking,  I  used  to  leave  the  shop  in  the 
month  of  September   about  6  o'clock,  but  the  time  of 
leaving  depended  very  much  upon  the  amount  of  busi- 
ness  that   was  going  on.      It  is  a  great    mistake   to 
suppose  that  September  was  the  dead  season  with  us, 
though  it  is  perfectly  true  that  balls  and  parties  are  not 
so  rife  in  London  then  as  they  are  in  the  height  of  the 
season.     Sometimes  Leonti  used  to  remain  at  the  shop 

F  2 


70 

later  than  I  did.  I  knew  nothing  of  Minton  being 
turned  away  for  rudeness,  except  from  what  my  sister 
told  me.  I  never  saw  him  in  my  life.  "We  never  kept 
any  books  at  our  establishment.  There  was  a  letter 
sent  from  our  place  to  Mr.  Cope,  Mrs.  Borradaile's 
brother-in-law,  and  that  is  in  the  handwriting  of  the 
boy  William.  I  know  his  handwriting,  because  I 
have  seen  him  directing  parcels. 

Several  letters  were  here  handed  to  the  witness,  and 
she  was  asked  if  she  could  identify  the  handwriting  in 
any  of  them.  She  replied  that  she  could  not.  They 
were  not,  she  said,  written  by  her,  nor  by  Leonti,  nor  by 
William.  The  long  account  produced  during  the  trial, 
which  purported  to  contain  a  listof  various  sums  of  money 
paid  by  Eachel  to  Mrs.  Borradaile,  and  which  the  latter 
receipted,  was  next  handed  to  her.  The  body  of  this — 
the  account  of  the  sums  paid — was,  she  stated,  written 
by  Leonti,  and  the  receipts  were  in  the  handwriting  of 
Mrs.  Borradaile. 

Cross — examination  continued. — Leonti  went  to  Paris 
in  1867,  and  there  she  assisted  in  mamma's  professional 
business.  Before  she  went  she  was  at  the  Maddox — 
street  house.  William  the  shopboy  is  the  only  William 
I  knew.  I  never  heard  of  any  other,  except  that  I 
know  the  name  to  be  a  very  ordinary  one.  Mrs. 
Borradaile  used  to  be  in  and  out  our  shop  a  great  many 
times  during  the  day. 

Now,  as  you  used  to  assist  in  the  shop,  of  course 
you  are  well  acquainted  with  the  business  your  mother 
carried  on  there  ? — I  am. 

Then  listen  to  this  list  of  your  charges,  which  I  quote 
from  one  of  your  pamphlets  : — "  Royal  Nursery  soap 
two  guineas  a  bottle  ;  lioyal  Palace  soap,  two  guineas 
a  bottle ;  Victoria  soap,  two  guineas  a  bottle  ;  Princess's 
soap,  two  guineas  a  bottle ;  Alexandra  soap,  two 
guineas  a  bottle  ;  Prince  of  Wales's  soap,  two  guineas  a 
bottle  ;  Honey  of  Mount  Hymetius  soap,  two  guineas  a 
bottle  ;  Peach  blossom  soap,  two  guineas  a  bottle." 
(Great  laughter.)  These,  I  believe,  were  some  of  the 
soaps  you  sold  ? — They  were. 


Then  you  sold  "Magnetic  Rock  Dew  Water  of  Sahara, 
for  removing  wrinkles  (renewed  laughter),  two  guineas 
u  bottle  ;"  and  "Liquid  flowers  and  herbs  for  the  bath, 
a  guinea  a  bottle."  I  find  among  the  various  other 
preparations  that  you  sold  "a  bottle  of  Jordan  water 
for  10  guineas  and  20  guineas."  (Great  laughter.) 
Now,  I  ask  you,  Miss  Leverson,  did  you  believe  this? 
Did  you  believe  that  this  Jordan  water  was  a  reality 
or  sham  ? — I  believed  it  to  be  a  reality. 

That  is,  you  mean  to  tell  the  Court  and  jury  on  your 
oath  that  you  believe  that  water  for  which  you  were 
charging  10  and  20  guineas  a  bottle  came  from  the 
river  Jordan  ?  I  believe  it  is  water  brought  from  the 
east. 

From  the  east !  Well,  but  that  is  very  indefinite,  for 
you  know  the  east  may  mean  Wapping.  (Great 
laughter).  What  I  ask  you  is,  do  you  mean  to  say  it 
came  from  the  river  Jordan  ?  Yes. 

How  do  you  know  that  ? — Because  it  was  consigned 
to  us  sometimes. 

By  whom  ? — Oh  !  I  cannot  expose  our  professional 
secrets.  (Great  laughter.)  If  you  will  come  to  our 
shop  and  buy  a  bottle,  I  may  tell  you.  (Renewed 
laughter.) 

I  never  like  to  be  rude  to  a  lady,  but  I  really  must 
press  you  for  an  answer  to  my  question.  I  ask  you 
again,  do  you  mean  to  swear  upon  your  solemn  oath 
that  this  water  came  from  the  river  Jordan  ? — I  say  I 
believe  it  did  come  from  there,  but,  of  course,  I  did  not 
see  it  brought. 

And  you  say  it  was  consigned  to  you  ? — Yes. 

By  an  agent  ? — Yes 

By  whom  ? — Oh  !  You  want  our  professional  secret 
to  come  out,  but  I  cannot  answer  your  question. 

Well,  now,  where  is  the  river  Jordan  ?  (A  pause.) 
Tell  me  where  it  is  ? — Is  it  not  near  Jerusalem  ? 

And  do  you  say  that  you  have  an  agent  there  ? — I 
don't  know  whether  he  is  at  the  Jordan,  but  I  say  he 
•consigns  the  Jordan  water  to  us. 


72 

Who  is  he  ?— I'll  not  tell  you.     (Great  laughter.) 

Well,  now,  here  is  another  pamphlet  of  yours,  which 
I  beg  to  hand  up  to  you.  I  want  to  know  who  wrote 
that  pamphlet  ? — My  sister  and  myself  composed  it. 

Then  listen  to  this  extract  from  it : — 

"  In  the  interior  of  Sahara,  or  the  Great  Desert,  is  a 
magnetic  rock,  from  which  water  distils  sparingly  in  the 
form  of  dew  (laughter),  which  is  possessed  of  extraor- 
dinary property.  Whether  a  latent  electricity  be  im- 
parted by  magnetism,  or  an  additional  quantity  of 
oxygen  enters  into  its  composition,  it  is  not  easy  to  say 
(More  laughter.)  But  it  appears  to  have  the  property 
of  increasing  the  vital  energies  as  it  restores  the  colour 
of  grey  hair  apparently  by  renewing  the  circulation  in 
its  capillary  tubes  (great  laughter),  the  cessation  of  which 
occasions  greyness  ;  and  it  gives  the  appearance  of  youth 
to  persons  of  considerable  antiquity.  (Great  laughter.) 
This  water  is  brought  to  Morocco  on  swift  dromedaries 
for  the  use  of  the  Court,  and  its  virtues  are  much 
extolled  by  their  physicians.  It  might  be  called  the 
antipodes  of  the  Lethean  Styx  of  ancient  times."  (Roars 
of  laughter.) 

I  have  only  another  question  to  ask  you — namely,  did 
you  know  of  the  £1,000  your  mother  obtained  from 
Mrs.  Borradaile  ? — I  did  not. 

Did  your  mother  never  tell  you  of  that  ? — Never. 

He-examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  PARKY. — The  prices  for 
the  soaps  and  powders  to  which  my  attention  has  been 
called  are  charged  to  all  our  customers  alike,  and  we 
have  had  a  vast  number  of  customers  besides  Mrs. 
Borradaile. 

Now,  do  you  state  positively  that  the  extract  read  is 
from  the  Illustrated  London  Neivs  ? — I  do.  I  have 
heard  that  Mr.  Haynes  transacted  a  large  amount  of 
business  for  my  mother  for  two  years  before  Mrs. 
Borradaile  became  known  to  her.  The  boy  William 
was  discharged  for  theft.  That  fact  was  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  our  attorney  (Mr.  Eoberts),  who  acted  on 
his  own  discretion  in  not  examining  him  at  the  last  trial. 


73 

When  the  London  season  is  over  we  supply  articles  in 
our  business  to  Brighton  and  other  fashionable  places. 
Fashionable  names,  such  as  the  Alexandra  soap,  the 
Prince  of  Wales's  soap,  and  so  on,  may  be  applied  to 
soap  as  well  as  to  other  articles. 

Miss  Leonti  Levison,  examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant 
PARRY — -I  am  the  younger  sister  of  the  last  witness. 
In  1866  and  1867  I  assisted  my  mother  in  the  business 
in  New  Bond-street.  I  recollect  seeing  Mrs.  Borradaile 
frequently  in  1866  and  1867.  I  have  never  written  a 
sham  letter  to  my  mother  in  the  name  of  "  William." 
Nor  have  I  written  any  of  the  letters  produced 
upon  this  trial  in  the  name  of  "  William."  There 
was  a  young  lad  named  William  in  my  mother's 
employ.  I  never  knew  anybody  in  our  employ  named 
Edward.  The  boy  Minton  used  to  come  round  to  our 
shop  with  messages  from  his  master,  Mr.  Taylor.  I 
never  saw  him  write.  He  used  to  be  in  our  small 
parlour  sometimes.  I  complained  of  his  impertinent 
conduct  to  Mr.  Taylor,  and  I  turned  him  away  on  one 
occasion.  There  was  no  friendly  feeling  between  him 
and  my  mother. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. — My 
sister  and  I  managed  my  mother's  business.  I  know 
nothing  of  the  £1,000  my  mother  got  from  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile. I  had  a  great  deal  of  anxiety  about  it,  but 
I  swear  I  do  not  up  to  this  moment  know  whether 
my  mother  received  that  money  or  not.  I  recollect  my 
mother  paying  notes  and  gold  on  one  occasion  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  I  cannot  tell  the  day  of  the  month,  or  the 
month,  when  those  notes  and  gold  were  paid.  It  was  in 
1866  or  1867.  I  often  saw  mamma  lend  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile money,  but  I  never  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile  return 
what  she  borrowed.  It  was  in  the  evening  when  it  was 
given  to  her.  I  cannot  tell  you  within  six  months  when 
it  was  lent.  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  always  borrowing 
money — twice  in  some  weeks,  and  oftener  in  others. 
Almost  from  the  first  of  their  acquaintance — and 
mamma  knew  Mrs  Borradaile  for  years — the  latter  was 


74 

borrowing  money.  She  was  borrowing  in  most  of  the 
months  of  June,  July,  August,  September,  October, 
November,  and  December,  1866.  I  cannot  say  about 
the  largest  amount  she  ever  borrowed.  On  on  occasion 
she  borrowed  either  £100  or  £200,  I  forget  which. 
Whether  that  was  the  largest  amount  she  ever  borrowed 
I  cannot  tell.  She  borrowed  the  £100  or  £200  in  1866 
or  1867.  (A  laugh.)  I  think  it  was  a  few  months 
before  the  end  of  1866  or  a  few  months  after  the 
beginning  of  1867.  That  is  the  nearest  date  I  can  give. 
She  borrowed  it  in  our  shop.  What  she  said  when  she 
borrowed  it  I  do  not  know.  She  did  not  say  what  she 
wanted  the  money  for.  She  did  not  say,  "Madame 
Rachel,  I  would  feel  obliged  by  your  lending  me  £100 
or  £200."  Shortly  after  mamma  gave  her  the  money. 
Whether  mamma  took  out  the  money  from  her  pocket 
or  not  I  cannot  say.  I  do  not  know  where  the  money 
was  got  from.  Mamma  had  no  banker,  and  never  had 
one  to  my  knowledge.  She  kept  her  money  in  the 
house.  The  reason  I  did  not  pay  more  attention  to  this 
transaction  was  because  I  was  attending  to  some  heavy 
business  in  the  shop  at  the  time.  Mamma  was  in  the 
habit  of  lending  money  to  ladies.  She  kept  her  money 
in  a  cabinet  in  the  little  parlour.  I  cannot  point  to  any 
date  or  time  when  any  more  money  was  lent  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  I  do  not  know  whether  mamma  asked 
Mrs.  Borradaile  for  a  receipt  for  the  £100  or  £200. 
Mamma  started  the  opera-box  at  the  beginning  of  the 
opera  season  in  1867.  I  was  not  the  young  lady  that 
Lord  Ranelagh  was  talking  to  when  mamma  introduced 
him  to  Mrs.  Borradaile.  I  never  saw  Mrs.  Borradaile 
at  the  shop  after  dark,  but  I  know  mamma  lent  her 
money  in  the  evening.  I  cannot  tell  from  10  to  100 
times  how  often  money  was  lent  to  her  in  the  evening. 
Mamma  very  seldom  went  out  during  business  hours. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Serjeant  PAKRY. — When  the 
£100  or  £200  was  lent  my  attention  was  not  particularly 
drawn  to  the  transaction.  Mrs.  Borradaile  might  have 
called  at  our  shop  as  far  back  as  1864.  I  and  my 


75 

sister  were  busily  employed  in  papering  up  the  powders 
and  making  other  preparations  for  sale,  and,  therefore, 
we  had  nothing  to  do  with  money  transactions.  My 
father  is  alive,  but  he  and  mamma  are  not  on  very  good 
terms. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE. —  He  lives  at  25  King- 
street,  Soho-square. 

To  the  COMMISSIONER. — We  did  not  sleep  at  the  shop. 
We  slept  at  Blackheath.  I  only  stopped  in  London  at 
night  when  Mamma  was  ill. 

The  account  was  here  handed  to  the  witness,  which 
purported  to  contain  receipts  from  Mrs.  Borradaile  for 
the  £100,  £80,  £70,  and  other  sums  already  mentioned, 
and  she  said  these  receipts  were  written  by  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile. Letters  were  also  handed  her,  but  the  hand- 
writing she  said  she  was  unable  to  identify. 

This  having  closed  the  evidence  for  the  defence, 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMONR  proceeded  to  address  the  jury  on 
behalf  of  the  prisoner.  He  commenced  by  saying  that 
he  was  there  for  the  second  time  to  argue  in  the  name 
of  justice  for  an  acquittal  of  his  client.  He  complained 
of  the  injustice  manifested  towards  her  by  those  who 
had  piled  up  publications  against  her  around  the  doors 
leading  to  that  court — publications,  which  were  of  the 
very  vilest  description,  not  containing  in  them  a  particle 
of  legal  truth,  which  had  nothing  about  them  except 
the  malice  of  those  who  had  put  them  together,  and  the 
sole  object  of  which  was  to  create  a  prejudice  in  the 
mind  of  the  jury  against  the  woman  at  the  bar.  Again, 
it  was  an  injustice,  in  these  days  of  a  free  press,  that 
from  day  to  day,  while  the  jury  were  sitting,  sworn  to 
give  an  impartial  verdict  in  this  case,  comments  should 
have  been  made  in  the  columns  of  daily  newspapers 
which  were  tinged  with  a  feeling  of  partisanship.  He 
cared  not  for  the  comments  made  in  those  newspapers 
upon  himself.  He  thanked  God  that  he  felt  sufficiently 
armed  against  such  attacks  as  to  be  able  to  declare 
boldly  that  no  philippics  or  taunts  should  ever  have  the 
effect  of  preventing  him  from  discharging  his  duty  in  an 


76 

intrepid  manner.  The  remarks  of  which  he  did  com- 
plain had  reference  to  what  was  said  respecting  the 
evidence  of  particular  witnesses,  the  mode  and  legal 
sequence  of  the  arguments,  and  the  conduct  generally 
of  the  defence  ;  and  such  was  the  prejudice  which  these 
remarks  were  likely  to  create  that  the  jury  ought  to  go 

ble 


down  upon  their  knees  and  pray  that  God  would  enable 
them  to  do  justice  in  this  case.  He  saw  that  pens  were 
at  work  in  the  press  calculated  to  deprive  the  jury  of 
their  reason  (a  laugh),  and  to  prevent  them  from  exer- 
cising that  impartial  and  unbiassed  judgment  which 
juries  were  always  expected  to  evince.  He  candidly 
believed  that  those  responsible  for  this  prosecution 
would  never  have  put  Mrs.  Borradaile  a  second  time 
into  the  box  as  a  witness  if  they  had  not  calculated  on 
the  fact  that  such  an  amount  of  prejudice  would  be 
created  by  the  press  as  would  prevent  the  jury  from 
deciding  on  the  actual  issue  now  before  them.  But 
though  he  had  thus  enlarged  upon  this  subject  at  the 
outset,  he  could  not  believe  —  however,  some  of  the 
jury  might  have  been  affected  by  the  prejudice  created, 
and  he  would  not  believe  until  he  had  some  proof  to 
the  contrary  —  that  when  he  had  addressed  the  12 
men  then  in  the  box  upon  the  iacts  he  should  appeal 
to  them  in  vain.  On  the  contrary,  he  entertained  hopes 
that  in  the  end,  alter  that  appeal,  they  would  return  a 
calm,  impartial,  and  honest  verdict.  What  meant  the 
introduction  into  the  case  of  the  Jordan  Water  ?  Were 
they  now  trying  a  question  as  to  whether  high-sounding 
names  should  be  given  to  articles  of  trade  ?  Why,  there 
was  not  an  article  sold,  nothing  which  we  ate,  drank,  or 
wore,  that  had  notfrom  time  to  time  been  dignified  by  dis- 
tinguished appellations  by  tradesmen.  For  instance,  the 
names  of  the  Queen,  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  the  Princess 
Alexandra  had  been  freely  used  in  shops,  and  the  intro- 
duction of  these  names  had  been  considered  pardonable 
upon  the  part  of  those  who  in  this  manner  brought  their 
wares  more  prominently  than  they  otherwise  would  have 
been  brought  under  the  notice  of  the  public.  The  jury 


77 

therefore,  were  not  trying  now  whether  the  prisoner 
had  given  her  cosmetics  to  the  world  under  high-sound- 
ing names.  That  was  not  the  charge  against  her,  and 
he  hesitated  not  to  say  that  the  attempt  of  the  learned 
serjeant  opposite  to  make  that  the  question  for  decision 
was  practically  to  insult  the  jury,  and  to  occupy  their 
minds  with  something  utterly  foreign  to  the  issue.  It 
might  be  that  the  prisoner  had  asked  very  high  prices 
for  her  preparations  ;  but  if  she  obtained  customers  at 
those  prices,  if  the  fashionable  world  lent  themselves  to 
create  a  demand  for  those  cosmetics,  was  she  to  be 
punished  for  having  furnished  them  with  a  supply  ? 
Whatever  might  be  the  hidden  key  for  explaining  the 
mystery  of  Bond- street,  whether  Lord  Kanelagh  was 
William,  or  whether  somebody  else  was  William,  one 
thing  was  certain,  that  what  occurred  was  between 
Mrs.  Borradaile  and  the  prisoner,  and  that  there  was 
something  clandestine,  something  in  the  nature  of  an 
intrigue,  could  not  be  doubted.  Whatever  might  be 
said  against  the  prisoner,  this  must  be  admitted  that 
she  had  given  her  children  a  good  education.  The  real 
question  for  decision  was  whether  the  prosecution  had 
satisfied  the  jury  that  the  prisoner  had  obtained  the 
money  by  means  of  false  pretences.  That  there  was 
something  strange  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  was 
clear,  else  why  was  she  living  in  London,  moving  about 
from  coffeehouse  to  coffeehouse,  while  her  daughter  and 
other  relations  were  all  living  in  Wales  ?  That  there 
was  a  "William  "  in  the  case,  though  he  had  not  been 
produced,  was  as  true  as  that  the  sun  shone  ;  and  that 
the  correspondence  was  genuine,  and  not  a  forgery,  as 
the  learned  serjeant  alleged,  but  failed  to  prove,  was 
equally  beyond  dispute.  The  learned  counsel  dwelt 
forcibly  upon  the  comparison  which  existed  between 
the  letters  and  documents,  and  said  that  he  would  ap- 
peal to  the  judgment  of  the  jury  whether  there  was  any 
foundation  for  the  suspicion  that  a  forgery  had  been 
committed.  Could  it  be  conceived  that  a  hundred 
letters,  written  at  all  times  upon  each  sides  of  the  paper 


78 

crossed  and  doubly-crossed,  with  post-scripts  and 
double  postscripts,  were  forgeries  ?  How  could  they 
reconcile  it  in  their  minds  that  persons  who  would  be 
capable  of  forgery  would  be  capable  also  of  giving,  in 
their  own  handwriting,  the  means  of  their  detection. 
The  next  theory  of  the  prosecution  was  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  wrote  the  letters  as  an  unconscious  being, 
that  she  was,  as  it  were,  under  "  magnetic  influence  " 
— a  widow  bewitched ;  that  she  had  drunk  some 
strange  waters,  with  some  strange  and  fancied  impulse 
thrilling  through  her  brain  ;  that  she  had  been  operated 
upon  by  some  secret  influence  ;  and  that  she  was  a  cap- 
tive in  the  hands  of  the  chief  juggler — Madame  Rachel. 
They  had  heard  of  such  things  as  electric  biology,  and 
of  a  mysterious  affinity  being  created  towards  persons 
of  both  sexes  by  which  two  hearts  and  two  minds  had 
been  brought  together.  The  present  was  an  age  of 
wonders,  no  doubt,  but  could  they  satisfy  their  minds 
that  this  strange  magnetic  influence  was  at  work  when 
Mrs.  Borradaile  called  at  the  linendraper's  and  selected 
the  apparel,  and  when  it  was  proved  she  did  her  business 
like  any  other  woman  in  her  proper  senses  ?  At  that 
time,  then,  had  she  drunk  the  poisoned  draught  ?  Had 
she  then  been  filled  with  those  waters  which  disturbed 
the  power  of  her  mind,  and  neutralized  the  thinking 
being  within  her  ?  Again,  he  would  ask  them,  was  she 
under  the  influence  of  this  magnetic  power  when  she 
proceeded  to  her  jewellers,  selected  the  diamonds,  and 
cheapened  the  price  ?  So  far  from  being  a  fool,  she 
appears  to  have  been  a  shrewd  woman  of  business,  and 
quite  capable  of  knowing  what  she  was  doing,  for  she 
wrote  in  a  flowing  hand  the  check  and  the  words,  "Pay- 
able at  Grindlay's  and  Co.'s  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile." 
Could  they,  as  reasonable  and  sensible  men,  accept,  after 
this,  the  preposterous  notion  of  the  magnetic  influence  ? 
It  was  also  alleged  that  she  had  fallen  suddenly  into  the 
hands  of  a  charmer ;  but  would  this  apply  to  what 
occurred  in  May,  1866,  when  she  resumed  her  acquaint- 
ance with  Madame  Rachel  ?  Was  it  not  too  much  to 


79 

say  that  this  educated  woman  had  become  suddenly 
paralyzed,  fascinated,  and  subdued  by  the  overwhelming 
power  and  strange  witchcraft  of  his  client  ?  And  the 
prosecution  had  propounded  another  and  an  equally 
strange  theory, — viz.,  that  of  ardent  liquors.  He  would 
ask  them  if  it  was  not  too  bad  to  assert  that  for  the 
first  time  now.  The  learned  serjeant,  however,  had 
thought  proper  to  infer  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  been 
placed  under  the  influence  of  drink.  If  she  was,  in 
reality,  a  woman  who  would  indulge  in  ardent  drinks^ 
they  would  be  able  to  value  her  character ;  but  they 
must  remember  that  if  she  indulged  one  day  the  in- 
fluence would  have  been  gone  by  the  next,  and  that  it 
was  not  likely  that  she  would  go  again  to  be  intoxi- 
cated. He  contended  that  there  was  no  ground  for 
that  suggestion,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  Mrs. 
Borradaile  was  a  clear-headed  and  business-like  woman. 
In  proof  of  this  he  alluded  to  the  admirable  way  in 
which  many  of  the  letters  were  written,  clearly 
showing  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  under  no  such  in- 
fluence whatever.  They  were  not  the  compositions  of  a 
woman  whose  hand  trembled  and  whose  brain  was  con- 
fused by  intoxication,  but  they  were  evidently  written 
when  she  had  her  senses  about  her.  Neither  was  there 
any  suspicion  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  been  drugged 
by  the  prisoner,  and  altogether  he  must  protest  against 
such  a  monstrous  thing  as  that  propounded  by  the  pro- 
secution. Then,  again,  there  was  that  of  the  dictation. 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  not  in  her  teens  ;  she  was  a  widow 
of  an  officer  who  had  seen  the  world  ;  she  was  evidently 
in  "  the  winter  of  her  discontent,"  and  a  little  beyond  50. 
She  had  seen  life,  and  knew  how  to  draw  and  what  to 
do  with  her  money,  and  yet  they  were  asked  to  believe 
that  she  did  everything  at  the  dictation  of  Madame 
Rachel.  He  trusted  they  would  look  at  this  theory  as 
something  which  was  totally  inconsistent  with  reason 
and  sense.  Could  they  rest  satisfied  with  the  theory 
that  Lord  Ranelagh  was  to  lead  from  the  steps  of  St. 
George's,  Hanover-square,  a  blooming,  renovated  bride 


80 

in  the  person  of  Mrs.  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile  ?  The 
scene  surely  would  be  too  strange  for  them  to  believe. 
Mrs.  Borradaile,  the  customer  of  Madame  Rachel  and 
the  widow  of  a  colonel,  happened  to  go  into  a  shop  in 
Bond-street  to  make  purchases,  and,  no  doubt,  to 
execute  an  arrangement  for  the  restoration  of  her  faded 
charms.  She  saw  outside  a  gentleman,  and  was  told 
that  he  was  to  be  her  lover  ;  the  door  opened,  and  then 
the  introduction,  "  Lord  Eanelagh,  Mrs.  Borradaile," 
followed  and  nothing  more.  One  would  have  expected 
more  than  this,  but  still  this  appeared  to  have  been  all. 
There  must  be  some  beginning  to  love.  He  saw  that 
his  friend  (Serjeant  Ballantine)  shook  his  head.  His 
love  had  no  beginning  (laughter),  and  he  (Mr.  Digby 
Seymour  hoped  it  would  have  no  end  ;  he  was  not  the 
man  to  want  any  magnetic  influence  to  aid  him  :  cer- 
tainly no  ardent  spirits  (renewed  laughter)  ;  but  in  the 
case  of  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile,  one  would  have  ex- 
pected to  see  a  little  more  delay  and  a  little  more  coy 
resistance  and  delicate  difficulty.  (Laughter.)  Here 
was  a  widow  who  had  been  married  six  and  twenty 
years,  and  whose  husband  had  been  dead  for  seven — 
a  widow  who  was  beyond  her  prime,  but  a  widow  who 
evidently  had  extraordinary  confidence  in  the  powers 
of  her  old  charms,  and  in  the  matchless  influence  of 
her  voluminous  locks — was  she  the  person,  then  to 
believe  that  the  man  whom  she  had  only  momentarily 
seen  outside  was  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  that  he  was  the 
man  who  was  going  to  marry  her  ?  Could  they  for  one 
moment  conceive  that  when  she  was  introduced  at  the 
door  to  an  English  nobleman  she  was  under  the  belief 
that  he  intended  to  make  her  his  bride  ?  It  would  be 
monstrous  to  conceive  such  a  thing.  But  this  was,  in 
fact,  the  whole  point  of  his  case.  They  must  be  satisfied 
that  there  was  some  false  pretence  of  an  intended  mar- 
riage, and  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  believed  it.  It  would 
not  do  for  her  simply  to  say  she  believed  it.  As  jury- 
men they  must  bring  to  bear  their  own  experience 
of  life  before  they  accepted  any  such  theory.  They 


81 

must  apply  the  test  to  this  as  to  any  other  case,  and 
decide  whether,  in  their  opinion  she  believed  she  was 
an  affianced  bride  at  the  time.  It  would  be  impossible,  he 
submitted,  for  them  to  believe  it.  Was  it  true  that  she 
asked  for  his  card,  and,  if  so,  why  did  she  take  it  ?  Was 
it  that  she  might  know  his  name  and  address  or  was 
it  that  she  might  call  upon  him  ?  If  she  did  all  this  in 
her  senses  what  became  of  the  theory  that  she  was 
under  the  influence  of  potent  whisky  ?  The  learned 
counsel  then  proceeded  to  argue  that  if  they  were  true 
the  jury  could  not  convict,  and  if  they  were  false  they 
•could  not  convict  either,  unless  they  charged  one  person 
with  falsehood  upon  another  person  who  was  confessedly 
false.  He  would  ask  them  to  throw  the  balance  of 
probability  into  the  scale,  and  then  the  testimony  of 
Lord  Ranelagh,  in  respect  to  the  giving  of  the  card, 
would  be  found  to  outweigh  that  of  Mrs.  Borradaile. 
She  had  sworn  that  she  got  his  Lordship's  card,  while 
he  denied  having  given  it  her  ;  but  if  such  really  was 
the  case  as  she  had  asserted,  why  had  not  the  card  been 
preserved  ?  She  had  sworn  that  she  got  the  card,  but 
she  had  no  memory  of  where  it  came  from.  If  he  was 
to  have  been  her  lover,  would  she  not  have  kept  it  as 
some  indication  of  the  introduction.  He  ventured  to 
assert  that  it  was  not  until  those  absurd  letters  had 
been  brought  to  light — the  letters  of  "  Dear  Tommy  " — 
that  Lord  Ranelagh  exchanged  a  word  with  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  The  contention  all  along  had  been  that  the 
letters  were  written  at  the  dictation  of  Madame  Rachel, 
she  being  at  the  time  the  manager  of  a  matrimonial 
intrigue  between  Mrs.  Borradaile  and  Lord  Ranelagh. 
If  so  would  Madame  Rachel  have  suggested  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile  that  she  should  address  the  very  first  letter 
which  she  wrote  from  a  coffeehouse  at  Paddington  ? 
He  would  ask  them  to  mark  this  well.  Madame  Rachel 
was  said  to  be  a  woman  of  the  would — clever,  though 
ignorant,  crafty,  though  illiterate,  a  woman  of  expe- 
rience, who  knew  that  she  was  dealing  with  a  lady,  and 
yet  it  was  said  that  she  suggested  such  an  address  on 


82 

the  very  first  Jove  letter  between  the  widow  of  a  colonel 
and  Viscount  Ranelagh.  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  said  that 
Lord  Kanelagh  was  introduced  to  her  as  a  rich  and 
good  man,  and  yet  she,  the  careful  widow,  said  the 
suggestion  was  made  to  her  that  she  should  date  her 
first  letter  from  a  small  coffeehouse.  There  was  some- 
thing about  this  which  was  remarkably  strange  It  would 
be  found  there  were  two  letters  written  at  the  same 
time — one  to  Madame  Rachel,  the  other  to  "  William," 
supposed  to  be  Lord  Ranelagh.  The  latter  was  dated  from 
the  coffeehouse,  but  that  to  Madame  from  the  Great 
Western  Hotel.  What  was  the  meaning  of  that  ?  How 
could  that  be  explained  ?  Was  it  likely  that  Lord 
Ranelagh  would  have  paid  attention  to  any  lady  at  a 
coffeehouse ;  would  he  have  gone  there  to  see  his 
intended  bride  ?  Fancy  Lord  Ranelagh  being  made  to 
go  as  a  lover  to  a  coffeehouse  at  Paddington  ?  The 
letter  was  written  evidently  before  she  was  quite  over- 
come by  the  magnetic  influence  which  afterwards  was 
said  to  operate  over  her.  In  the  letter  there  was  this 
remarkably  phrase, — "  As  before,  I  do  not  wish  for 
any  intrusion."  If  such  a  letter  as  this  had  fallen  into 
the  hands  of  any  of  the  jury,  and  they  knew  that  it 
came  from  a  lady,  would  the  inference  not  have  been 
that  some  prior  meeting  had  been  held — a  meeting,  it 
might  have  been,  between  her  and  "  William  ?"  It  was 
consistent,  at  all  events  with  the  suggestion  that  there 
was  some  other  person,  not  Lord  Ranelagh,  who  had 
visited  her  at  the  coffeehouse.  The  learned  gentleman 
again  alluded  to  the  letters  and  to  the  theories  of  the 
prosecution,  and  said  that  for  it  to  be  suggested  that 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  not  in  her  right  senses  when  she 
wrote  them  was  a  monstrous,  a  base,  and  a  preposterous 
invention,  and  an  endeavour  to  do  by  prejudice  what 
they  had  not  dared  to  establish  before  the  jury  by  testi- 
mony upon  oath.  The  letter  sent  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  to- 
"  Dear  William"  asking  him  to  meet  her  at  a  coffee- 
house near  the  Davis-street  baths,  was  next  read  and 
commented  on,  and  the  learned  counsel  called  attention 


83 

to  the  fact  that  no  attempt  had  been  made  by  the 
prosecution  to  support  Mrs.  Borradaile  in  respect  to 
this,  or  to  prove  that  a  message  had  been  left  at  the 
house  as  suggested.  He  then  passed  on  to  observe  that 
the  question  of  the  bath  had  occupied  the  attention  of 
people  who  had  exposed  Madame  Rachel  to  ribald 
songs  and  cruel  jests,  songs  as  wretched  in  composition 
as  they  were  wicked  in  invention.  There  were  headings 
in  various  papers,  and  pictures  in  police  sheets  also 
utterly  and  abominably  cruel,  which  had  been  pre- 
judicial to  the  woman  who  was  then  on  her  trial.  He 
would  venture  to  assert  that  if  the  jury  were  to  inspect 
her  house  they  would  find  nothing  to  indicate  those 
deeds  of  uncleanness  and  immorality  which  it  was  said 
had  been  practised  there.  Talk  of  baths  !  Why  there 
were  no  such  things  there,  and  the  assertion  that  had 
been  made  about  "  eyes  of  eager  lust"  was  altogether  a 
wicked  and  abominable  invention.  There  was  no  pre- 
tence for  it.  The  only  bath  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  took 
was  at  the  public  baths  in  Davies-street,  and  it  was  a 
monstrous  thing  to  enshroud  the  prisoner  with  such  a 
cloud  of  prejudice  as  required  all  the  efforts  of  her 
counsel  to  tear  the  veil  away,  in  order  that  justice 
might  be  done  her.  It  would  not  do  for  advocates  to  be 
nice  or  tender  about  feelings  ;  their  duty  was  to  get  at 
the  truth.  It  did  not  lie  upon  the  prisoner  affirmatively 
to  prove  her  innocence,  but  upon  the  prosecution  to 
establish  her  guilt,  and  if  he  succeeded  in  the  proposi- 
tions he  had  laid  down,  then  he  doubted  not  that  an 
acquittal  was  clear  and  certain.  The  learned  counsel  next 
proceeded  to  argue  that  "Dear  William"  was  some  person 
other  than  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  that  the  allusion  which 
had  been  made  to  his  lordship  was  made  by  Mrs.  Borradaile 
for  the  purpose  of  clearing  herself  of  the  imputation 
which  lodged  upon  her,  as  was  proved  by  the  words  of 
Madame  Rachel  when  she  accused  her  of  spending  her 
money  upon  a  paramour.  She  was  evidently  playing 
off  a  trick  upon  her  friends  by  pretending  that  her 
lover  was  Lord  Ranclagh  ;  but  were  the  flannels,  the 


84 

shirts,  and  the  socks  for  his  lordship,  or  were  they  not 
for  some  other  "  Dear  "William  ?"  with  whom  she  was 
about  to  fly  to  Paris. 

At  5  o'clock  Mr.  Digby  Seymour  said  it  was  impos- 
sible to  conclude  his  address  that  evening,  being  physi- 
cally unable  to  proceed  further. 

The  trial  was  again  adjourned  till  this  morning. 


FOURTH  DAY. 

This  morning,  at  the  opening  of  the  Court,  the  trial 
of  Sarah  Rachel  Levison,  better  known  as  Madam 
Rachel,  began  on  monday,  on  the  charge  of  obtaining 
from  Mary  Tucker  Borradaile,  by  certain  false  and  fraud- 
ulent pretences,  the  sum  of  £1,400.  with  intent  to 
defraud,  was  resumed. 

As  from  the  first  the  court-house  was  crowded 
throughout  the  clay.  Lord  Ranelagh  was  again  present. 

Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine  (with  whom  were  Mr. 
Montagu  Williams  and  Mr.  Straight)  conducted  the 
prosecution ;  Mr.  Digby  Seymour.  Q.  C.,  Mr.  Serjeant 
Parry,  Mr.  Serjeant  Sleigh,  and  Mr.  Butler  Digby  the 
defence. 

A  conversation  arose  between  the  Commissioner  and 
Mr.  Digby  Seymour  as  to  the  admission  of  some  letters, 
and  the  production  of  Mr.  Haynes'  bill  of  costs. 

A  juryman  asked  to  be  allowed  to  see  the  bill. 

The  COMMISSIONER  said  he  had  looked  over  it,  and 
found  there  a  number  of  matters,  the  charges  amount- 
ing altogether  to  about  £140. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  submitted  that  in  no  shape  or 
form  could  the  bill  of  costs  be  put  in  as  evidence  against 
Madame  Rachel.  It  had  been  produced  on  the  part 
of  the  prosecution.  He  wished  to  see  the  cash  account 
to  which  Mr.  Haynes  had  referred. 

THE  COMMISSIONER  asked  if  Mr.  Haynes  was  present  ? 

His  son  (who  was  in  court)  replied  that  he  was  to  ill 
to  attend,  owing  to  a  spasmodic  affection  of  the 
heart. 


85 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  intimated  his  intention  to 
dispute  the  account. 

The  COMMISSIONER  said  Mr.  Haynes  had  sworn  that 
the  only  knowledge  he  had  of  the  different  sums  he  had 
paid  was  contained  in  a  sheet  of  a  paper  which  bore 
Madame  Rachel's  initials,  and  which  had  passed  into 
her  hands.  He  had  also  stated  that  he  thought  he 
could  make  up  the  account  from  other  documents  which 
he  had  in  his  possession. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  said  if  the  draught  was  produced 
he  would  not  complain,  otherwise  he  should  have  to 
comment  upon  the  circumstance  in  the  course  of  his 
address. 

The  COMMISSIONER  said  if  Mr.  Hajnes  could  not 
attend  the  matter  would  have  to  stand  as  it  was. 

Mr.  DIGBY  SEYMOUR  then  resumed  his  address.  He 
thanked  the  jury  for  the  patient  attention  they  had 
given  to  his  remarks  so  far,  and  reminded  them  that 
he  had  concluded  on  the  previous  day  by  referring  to 
the  remarkable  letter  of  the  4th  of  September.  Hav- 
ing looked  at  the  contents  of  that  letter  backward  and 
forward,  and  thought  of  it  constantly,  he  confessed  he 
was  unable  to  see  by  what  legitimate  argument  his 
learned  friend  could  reconcile  it  with  the  guilt  of  the 
prisoner.  It  was  a  letter  to  Mr.  Cope,  the  exposure  of 
which,  they  must  remember,  would  have  spoilt  the 
game  it  was  alleged  Madame  Rachel  was  then  playing 
would  have  had  the  effect  of  stopping  the  receipt  of 
money  from  Haynes  to  herself,  and  have  enabled  the 
family  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  frustrate  the  fraudulent 
scheme  Madame  Rachel  was  then  said  to  be  practising. 
Mr,  Digby  Seymour  next  alluded  to  letters  dated 
August,  I860,  and  March  and  May,  1867,  and  said  that 
if  their  whole  tone  and  the  postscript  were  considered, 
the  conclusion  was  irresistible  that  they  were  the  com- 
position of  Mrs.  Borradaile,  and  not  the  language  of  an 
uneducated  woman  like  his  client.  The  allusions  they 
contained  showed  that  a  communication  was  being  held 
at  the  time  between  Mrs.  Borradaile  and  the  mysterious 


86 

being"  William."  Her  statement  as  to  not  wishing  to 
go  to  Mount-street  was  proof  that  it  could  not  refer  to 
Lord  Ranelagh,  for  his  Lordship  did  not  reside  there. 
The  letter  contained  these  sentences  : — "  I  was  at  Mr. 
Haynes'  yesterday,  and  he  has  arranged  everything 
satisfactorily  between  Madame  Rachel  and  myself." 
Again,"  I  have  ordered  the  shirt,  and  they  will  be  sent 
home  to-morrow  morning,"  and  "  Madame  Rachel  has 
promised,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Haynes,  that  she  will 
not  trouble  me  about  money  matters,  as  she  will  be 
satisfied  with  any  arrangement  I  may  think  proper  to 
make."  Could  this  be  the  language  of  Madame  Rachel, 
and  was  it  dictated  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  ?  Could  they 
for  one  moment  doubt  that  it  was  the  language  of  Mrs. 
Borradaile,  and  that  she  was  dealing  with  the  relation 
that  evidently,  existed  between  herself  and  "William." 
"  I  am  afraid  to  go  to  Rachel's  for  fear  of  Mr.  Bauer  ; 
she  told  me  yesterday  he  had  an  execution  against  me. 
I  offered  to  give  him  back  the  lace,  but  he  would  not 
take  it."  Surely  these  were  remarkable  facts.  That 
Mr.  Bauer  had  an  execution  against  her  was  true,  and 
if  she  had  been  told  so  by  Rachel,  was  it  likely 
she  would  go  to  her  shop  to  write  this  very  letter  at 
her  dictation  ?  Mrs.  Borradaile  could  not  have  been  at 
the  prisoner's  when  that  letter  was  written.  It  was 
clearly  one  of  those  things  which  spoke  for  itself. 
Again,  "She  has  exposed  the  whole  affair  about  the 
lace,  the  very  thing  I  did  not  wish  to  be  known.  It 
was  most  foolish  of  her,  exposing  my  affairs  to  my 
family.  She  says  she  did  it  to  prevent  my  being 
arrested.  This  affair  has  nearly  broken  my  heart.  I 
did  not  know  that  you  were  ill,  or  I  would  not  have 
upbraided  you  for  coldness  and  unkindness  ;  but  I 
thought  you  had  neglected  me."  By  what  possible 
argument  could  it  be  said  that  this  was  the  dictation  of 
the  prisoner  ?  Would  Madame  Rachel  have  suggested 
the  words,  "  She  has  exposed  the  whole  affair,"  the  very 
thing  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  did  not  wish  her  to  do  ? 
Then,  again,  the  purchase  of  the  neckties  and  socks. 


87 

Could  it  be  suggested  for  one  moment  that  they  were 
for  Lord  Ranelagh  ?  It  was  a  proposition,  upon  the  face 
of  it,  absurd  to  say  that  Madame  Rachel  told  her  to  put 
down  all  this — awake  or  asleep,  or  under  whatever 
magnetic  influence  Mrs.  Borradaile  at  the  time  might 
have  been.  "  All  my  family  have  cut  me.  They  say 
they  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  such  an  incorrigible 
as  they  thought  I  was  !"  Was  this  language  to  send  to 
Lord  Ranelagh — to  the  man  who  loved  and  admired 
her  ?  "  My  dear  William, — I  shall  see  Mrs.  Lilley,  as 
you  desire  ;  she  will,  no  doubt,  be  of  service  to  you." 
Who  was  Mrs.  Lilley  ?  He  had  tried  to  ascertain,  but 
failed.  At  all  events,  it  was  certain  that  the  allusion 
was  made  to  some  person  in  no  way  connected  with 
Madame  Rachel.  Neither  had  there  been  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  to  connect  the  prisoner 
with  that  lady.  No  doubt  she  was  known  to  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile, but  that  she  was  a  person  who  was  not  associating 
with  Lord  Ranelagh  was  clear.  The  next  passage  was 
as  remarkable  as  the  others  : — "  It  seems  you  know  the 
overland-route  to  my  heart."  Surely  that  could  not  be 
the  language  of  Madame  Rachel !  Mrs.  Borradaile, 
they  must  remember,  was  a  lady  who  had  travelled  ;  she 
had  been  in  India,  and  was  the  widow  of  a  Colonel. 
Mr.  Seymour  commented  upon  other  passages,  relating 
to  the  inspection  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  of  the  lace,  the 
diamonds,  the  carriage,  and  the  house,  and  said  it  was 
remarkable  that  none  of  the  tradesmen  had  been  pro- 
duced by  the  prosecution  to  verify  the  assertions  that 
were  made.  Where  was  the  coachmaker  and  the  house 
agent,  and  where  was  the  house  situate  ?  "  My  own 
dear  William, — I  am  very  much  surprised  and  annoyed 
at  Madame  Rachel's  impertinence."  Very  remarkable, 
this!  "It  was  a  serious  quarrel,  and  all  concerning 
you."  What  on  earth  could  the  quarrel  be  about  ?  Why 
should  Mrs.  Borradaile  and  Madame  Rachel  quarrel  ? 
"  A  serious  quarrel,"  they  would  remember,  "  and  all 
concerning' you."  They  had  heard  something  of  an  ex- 
traordinary scene  at  Mr.  Haynes',  it  was  true,  some 


allusion  was  made  by  Madame  Rachel  to  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile's  extravagance  in  spending  her  money  on  a  para- 
mour ;  and  probably  this  was  the  solution  of  the 
passage.  "  Not  one  member  of  my  family  will  hold  any 
communication  with  me  for  forming,  as  they  say,  such  a 
degraded  connexion  with  you."  What  could  this  be  ? 
A  degraded  connexion  with  whom  ?  Certainly  not 
with  Lord  Ranelagh,  but  probably  with  some  un- 
known lover  under  the  pretence  of  being  Captain 
William  Edwardes.  WTas  Madame  Rachel  likely  to 
dictate  such  words  as  "a  degraded  connexion  with  Lord 
Ranelagh  ?''  It  was  more  probable  that  the  allusion 
referred  to  a  paramour,  such  as  had  been  referred  to 
before  before  Mr.  Haynes.  "Am  I  to  believe  that 
the  woman  you  are  travelling  with,  and  whom  you  in- 
troduced to  me  as  your  sister  " — could  this  be  the  dic- 
tation of  Madame  Rachel,  or  would  it  support  the  theory 
that  had  been  set  up  by  the  prosecution  that  Mrs. 
JBorradaile  when  she  wrote  was  under  the  influence  of  a 
charmer  ?  "  My  own  dear  William,  it  is  very  kind  of 
you  to  take  care  of  my  comb  and  frissette,  which  is  my 
own  hair."  Was  not  this  the  language  of  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile  ?  It  was  a  small  matter,  perhaps,  but  it  would  aid 
the  jury  in  solving  the  labrynth  of  mystery  by  which  the 
case  was  surrounded.  "The  hairdresser  in  the  High- 
street,  Cheltenham,  made  it — the  man  who  used  to 
shave  you."  How  could  they  reconcile  this  with  the 
theory  that  it  was  Lord  Ranelagh  ?  It  was  certain  that 
he  had  not  been  under  the  hands  of  a  barber  for  years. 
(Laughter.)  And  when  interrogated,  how  had  Mrs. 
Borradaile  tried  to  get  out  of  it  ?  She  said  that  his 
head  was  shaved.  (Laughter.)  That  was  just  like  Mrs. 
Borradaile.  "  I  have  no  one  to  care  for  me  but  you, 
and  I  love  you  all  the  more  for  it.  I  have  given  you  all 
that  a  woman  holds  dear."  A  terrible  passage  this. 
As  men  of  the  world,  what  would  be  their  opinion  if 
they  read  this  in  a  book  ?  But  what  was  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile's  account  ?  With  a  smile  upon  her  countenance 
she  said  that  all  a  woman  held  dear  was  her  money. 


89 

There  was  nothing  to  show  that  the  prisoner  had  oper 
ated  on  the  vain  mind  of  Mrs.  Borradaile.  The  request 
that  "  dear  William "  would  not  join  the  mob  lest  he 
should  be  shot,  the  taking  of  the  photograph  to  bed, 
and  the  attempt  to  screen  him  from  her  family  were  re- 
ferred to  as  being  consistent  with  the  theory  of  the 
defence  that  they  were  not  dictated  by  the  prisoner,  but 
were  the  ready  effusions  of  Mrs.  Borradaile.  He  never 
could  sufficiently  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  jury 
that,  by  whatever  means  the  letters  came  into  the  pos- 
session of  Rachel,  they  had  no  right  to  entertain  scruples 
of  delicacy  or  queries  of  difficulty  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  that  strange  circumstance  had  occurred.  Tie  was 
not  called  upon  to  supply  the  fact  as  to  how  that  had 
happened.  It  was  for  the  prosecution  to  make  out  their 
case  without  any  flaw  or  loophole  ;  it  was  not  for  the 
defence  to  sustain  the  weakness  of  the  prosecution.  If 
there  was  a  flaw  left,  creating  a  doubt,  the  benefit  of 
that  doubt  ought  to  be  given  to  the  prisoner.  She  was, 
•of  course,  obliged  to  be  silent,  and  could  not  throw  any 
light  upon  any  part  of  the  transaction.  Upon  the  ex- 
tremely mysterious  point  as  how  the  letters  came  into 
her  possession  the  whole  thing  was  wholly  inexplicable 
upon  the  theory  of  the  prosecution.  Mrs.  Borradaile, 
who  according  to  her  own  account,  seemed  throughout 
this  case  to  have  been  walking  in  her  sleep — drugged, 
subdued,  captivated,  enamoured  of  some  man  named 
William — did  not  pretend  to  account  for  it.  All  she 
could  say  was  that  she  had  written  the  letters  to  Lord 
Ranelagli  at  Rachel's  dictation,  in  one  of  those  letters 
saying  to  his  lordship,  "  You  have  forgotten  having  seen 
me  in  the  bath."  And  this  she  wrote  to  an  English 
nobleman !  Was  this  the  invenl  ion  of  a  disorganized 
brain  ?  He  (Mr.  Seymour)  recollected  a  case  which  had 
'been  tried  at  Westminster  Hall,  when  it  appeared  that 
certain  letters  then  produced,  written  by  and  to  a  lady 
were  the  mysterious  workings  of  the  human  brain  of 
'One  and  the  same  individual.  He  should  be  glad,  if  he 
.could,  to  account  for  the  eccentricities  of  Mrs.  Borra- 


90 

daile    by    supposing    that    she  was  labouring    under 
some  affliction   of    Providence,   but   even   that  hypo- 
thesis   could  not    be  set  up    in   her    defence,    for   it 
appeared  that  upon  almost  everything,  save  her  over- 
weening vanity,  she  was  perfectly  sane  and  collected. 
In  others  of  her  letters  she  went  011  to  speak  to  "  dear 
Tommy  "  about  horse  racing,  what  he  was  to  win  by 
backing  horses  next  season,  and  what  the  Marquis  of 
Hastings   had  lost  in  a   single  day  ;    and  then  there 
followed  in  one  of  them  this  very  remarkable  passage  : — 
"I   will  go  to  the  baths  at  the  Argyle   Booms   this 
evening  ;  I  will  then  wait  for  you  at  the  publichouse  at 
the  back  of  Regent-street,  and  will  ask  for  a  private 
room  for  us  there."     I  will  put  on  a  dark  dress  and  veil 
and  do  you  put  on  your  Sunday  beard  and  whiskers." 
(A  laugh.)      Here  she  was  absolutely   appointing   an 
interview  with  a  nobleman  in  a  common  publichouse.  What 
was  the  meaning  of  her  breaking  off  with  William  and 
taking  on  with  Tommy  ?  This, — that  having  spent  her 
money  partly  on  William  without  being  able  to  get  him 
to  marry  her,  she  now  thought  she  would  excite  his 
jealousy  by  addressing  her  future  letters  to  Tommy. 
He  (the  learned  counsel)  contended  that  there  was  not 
one  honest,  solemn,  reasonable  particle  of  truth  in  the 
allegation  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  that  Rachel  had  dictated 
the  letters.     Minton's  evidence  was  utterly  unreliable 
and  if  the  jury  credited  it  for  a  moment  they  would  be 
relying  on  a  broken  reed.     At  Marlborough-street  that 
boy  was  wholly  unable  to  identify  the  handwriting  of 
any  one  of  the  letters.     But  afterwards,  when  the  whole 
of  the  correspondence  had  appeared  in  the  newspapers, 
he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  thought  he  could 
identify  an  "  o  "  in  one  of  the  letters.    If  this  case  rested 
solely  upon  the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  the  jury 
would  not  hang  a  cat  (a  laugh)  ;  if  it  rested  on  that  of 
Minton,  and  he   was  believed,  then  undoubtedly  the 
indictment  might  be  sustainable.      But  he  could  not  be 
believed,  particular!}'  when  the  jury  recollected  what  he 
said  about  the  pocket  book,  and  about  his  going  down 


91 

as  a  volunteer  to  Mr.  Cridland's  office.  That  pocket 
book  contained  five  pages  of  a  pencil  entry  by  him  which 
were  copied  by  Mr.  Cridland's  clerk.  Why  had  not  that 
clerk  been  produced  ?  The  pencil  entry  consisted  of 
what  he  had  read  in  the  newspapers  of  his  own  evidence 
at  Marlborough-street,  and  in  that  entry  he  stated  that 
one  of  the  letters  purporting  to  have  been  written  by 
Lord  Ranelagh  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  like  his  own 
handwriting  at  a  time  when  he  said  he  had  been  em- 
ployed by  Rachel  to  write  a  letter  from  his  lordship  to 
•  the  prosecutrix  Then  he  said  in  the  entry  that  he  con- 
veyed various  letters  from  Eachel  to  Edwardes.  The 
entry,  being  the  result  of  an  afterthought,  must  be  at 
once  rejected  ;  and  that  being  so,  and  there  being  really 
only  the  one  witness,  Minton,  in  the  case,  there  was 
nothing  to  affect  the  home,  hearts,  or  household  of 
Eachel.  Of  course,  to  listen  to  the  prosecution  the 
prisoner  was  something  like  the  Witch  of  Endor,  but 
now  that  the  whole  of  the  evidence  against  her  had  l3een 
produced  it  was  abundantly  clear  that  she  was  wholly 
guiltless  of  any  charge  whatever.  There  was  one  letter 
upon  which  the  prisoner  must  be  acquitted.  That  was 
a  letter  written  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  containing  this 
passage :  "  I  cannot  tell  you  how  grieved  I  was  to 
hear  of  your  sad  accident,  and  so  was  my  dear  William, 
He  will  call  upon  you  to-morrow."  Did  William  call,  and 
to  whom  was  this  letter  addressed  ?  These  were  mysteries. 
Again  she  said  in  a  letter  she  had  called  at  Cridland's 
and  found  Lord  Ranelagh  there  ;  that  she  thought 
his  lordship,  who  was  drunk,  would  have  struck  her. 
She  then  went  on  to  say  that  his  lordship  had  spoken  of 
her  "  William,"  and  that  in  consequence  she  called  him 
"  a  liar  and  a  thief,  and  a  cowardly,  unmanly  vagabond." 
(Laughter.)  The  learned  counsel  having  quoted  at 
length  from  other  letters  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  Rachel, 
he  proceeded  to  observe  that  the  letters  she  had  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Haynes,  the  attorney,  were  clear,  busi- 
ness-like, and  practical,  the  productions  of  a  woman  of 
the  world,  perfectly  capable  of  telling  her  attorney  how 


92 

to  conduct  her  case.  He  then  asked  in  a  loud  voice, 
"Where  is  Mr.  Haynes?"  There  being  no  response, 
Mr.  Seymour  said,  "  I  wished  now  to  further  examine 
Mr.  Haynes,  but  it  appears  he  is  not  here,  and  that  the 
only  answer  to  my  question  of  '  Where  is  Mr.  Haynes  V 
is  that  of  '  Echo  answers,  where  ? ' "  And  now  that  his 
speech  was  drawing  to  a  close  he  desired  to  do  again  to- 
day what  he  had  done  yesterday — namely,  to  remind 
the  jury  that  they  were  not  trying  Rachel  for  having 
charged  enormous  prices  for  her  preparations,  or  for  the 
high-sounding  names  she  had  given  to  her  soaps  and 
powders.  These  were  things  done  everyday  by  trades- 
men. A  man  could  not  take  up  any  newspaper,  in- 
cluding the  Thunderer,  without  seeing  the  enormous 
extent  to  which  puffing  was  carried  on  in  these  days, 
distinguished,  perhaps,  from  all  preceding  days  by  com- 
petition, being  the  grease  which  kept  in  perpetual  mo- 
tion the  wheels  of  industry.  Nay,  the  very  newspapers 
themselves  were  competing  with  each  other  in  red 
flaming  placards  of  enormous  length,  the  letters  011 
which  were  as  big,  not  as  his  leg,  but  as  his  bod}r. 
(Laughter.)  On  one  of  these  placards  might  be  read 
the  words,  "  The  largest  paper  in  the  world,"  and  on  the 
other,  "  The  largest  circulation  in  the  world."  (Renewed 
laughter.)  Before  competition  of  this  kind  Jordan 
water  and  Arabic  perfumes  sank  into  insignificance.  If 
the  jury  did  not  pity  the  prisoner,  at  all  events  let  them 
sympathize  with  the  cause  of  justice.  What  had  she 
received  from  Mr.  Haynes  ?  A  check  ?  He  denied  it, 
for  there  was  not  a  particle  of  documentary  proof  in 
support  of  the  allegation.  If  on  the  last  trial  justice 
had  not  been  done  the  prisoner,  let  justice  be  done  her 
now.  If  before  she  had  not  been  dealt  with  impartially, 
let  her  be  dealt  with  impartially  now.  She  had  not  at- 
tempted to  escape  the  hands  of  justice,  though  there 
were  occasions  since  this  matter  was  first  talked  about 
when  she  might  have  absconded  to  Paris.  She  made 
her  appearance  at  the  Marlborough  Police-court,  and  at 
all  times  when  wanted  she  was  forthcoming.  His  task 


was  done.  Whatever  the  issue  of  the  case  might  be,  he 
felt  that  he  had  discharged  his  duty.  He  had  tried  to 
be  animated  and  stimulated  by  the  belief  that  he  should 
not  make  his  appeal  to  the  jury  in  vain.  The  counsel 
who  maintained  the  dignity  of  his  profession,  and  en- 
deavoured to  support  the  interests  of  his  client  by  fair 
play,  and  not  by  sophistry,  usually  obtained  the  approval 
of  the  Court  and  the  respect  of  his  fellow-citizens,  but, 
above  all,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  enjoying  the  ap- 
proval of  his  own  conscience.  If  he  believed  and  was 
satisfied  that  the  jury  then  in  the  box  could  realize  the 
importance  of  this  case,  not  only  to  the  present  genera- 
tion but  to  posterity,  he  should  believe  in  the  triumph 
of  his  contention  whether  the  verdict  was  for  or  against 
him ;  but  if  he  could  suppose  that,  after  all,  their  minds 
would  still  remain  prejudiced,  then  he  would  appeal 
from  their  anticipated  conviction  to  the  justice  of  his 
country. 

The  learned  counsel,  who  had  on  the  two  days  occu- 
pied with  his  address  spoken  for  eight  hours  and  five 
minutes,  here  resumed  his  seat  amid  some  applause, 
which  was  at  once  suppressed  by  the  officers  of  the 
Court. 

Mr.  Serjeant  BALLANTINE,  in  replying  upon  the  whole 
case,  said  he  would  only  occupy  the  attention  of  the  jury 
for  a  comparatively  short  time,  during  which  he  cer- 
tainly should  make  none  of  those  inflammatory  appeals 
to  their  consciences  in  which  his  learned  friend  had  in- 
dulged, and  which  were  quite  unnecessary  in  a  trial  of 
the  present  kind.  He  should  also  forbear  from  touch- 
ing on  many  of  the  matters  upon  which  his  learned 
friend  had  commented,  and  especially  would  he  take 
>care  not  to  imitate  Mr.  Seymour  in  making  any  boast  of 
the  place  (though  it  was  London)  which  had  given  him 
birth.  (Laughter.)  All  references  of  this  kind,  how- 
ever able  and  eloquently  they  might  be  made,  accom- 
panied with  all  that  vehemence  to  which  they  had  just 
listened,  were  altogether  misplaced.  The  case  itself  had 
unquestionably  excited  great  interest  in  the  press  and 


94 

on  the  part  of  the  public,  but  then  in  many  respects  it 
was  only  a  trumpery  affair,  and  there  was  no  pretence 
for  telling  the  jury  that  the  eyes  of  the  world  were  upon 
it,  and  that  it  would  go  down  to  posterity  as  one  of  the 
the  most  memorable  trials  of  the  age.  Parts  of  it 
admitted  of  no  question  of  doubt.  It  was  undeniable, 
for  instance,  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  lost  all  her  money, 
her  property,  and  her  pension,  and  the  only  question 
was  whether  all  that  had  been  lost  by  means  of  the  false 
pretences  made  use  of  by  Rachel.  And  this  being  the 
simple  issue,  he  could  not  forbear  thinking  that  much 
valuable  time  had  been  consumed  in  the  conduct  of  the 
case.  The  only  defence  set  up  was  that  Mrs.  Borradaile 
had  had  an  intrigue  with  some  man  named  William, 
and  that  to  that  intrigue  Madame  Rachel  was  a  party. 
If,  then,  this  was  the  simple  issue,  and  this  defence,  the 
vehement  indignation  of  his  learned  friend  seemed  to 
have  been  entirely  and  uselessly  thrown  away.  The 
prosecution  admitted  at  once  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  was 
a  weak,  credulous,  foolish,  and  vain  woman ;  but,  then, 
she  was  not  the  only  weak  and  credulous  woman  in  the 
world.  The  jury  had  doubtless  all  heard  lately  of 
the  celebrated  Chancery  case  of  "  Lyon  v.  Home," 
the  plaintiff  in  which  believed  that  Home  could 
communicated  with  the  spirit  of  her  deceased  hus- 
band in  the  other  world.  That  was  a  case  in 
which  a  picture  was  exhbited  of  quite  as  much  folly, 
credulity,  and  weakness  as  ever  Mrs.  Borradaile  had 
shown,  and,  moreover,  while  the  latter  had  lost  only 
some  £5,000,  Mrs.  Lyon  was  out  of  pocket  to  the  tune 
of  about  £60,000  in  respect  of  Home's  pretended  con- 
versations with  her  dead  husband.  (Laughter.)  There 
was  no  analogy  between  the  high-sounding  names  given 
by  Rachel  to  her  cosmetics  and  those  given  by  trades- 
men to  their  wares  ;  neither  was  there  any  point  in  the 
argument  of  his  learned  friend  respecting  competition 
and  the  flaming  red  placards  of  the  Telegraph  and 
Standard.  Competition  and  high  sounding  names  there 
might  be  in  all  branches  of  trade,  but  then,  in  that  of 


95 

Rachel  there  was  a  quantity  of  worthless  trash  collected 
by  her  and  put  into  bottles  and  sold  at  enormous  prices. 
The  truth  was  that  she  carried  on  a  system  of  whole- 
sale fraud  under  the  plea  of  having  a  perfumer's  shop. 
The  shop  and  all  its  contents  were  a  mere  matter  of  form 
and  of  trickery,  under  the  pretence  of  conducting 
which  she  had  other  objects  in  view ;  and,  before  this 
case  was  concluded,  such  new  facts  would  be  opened 
up  as  would  cause  the  jury  unhesitatingly  to  pronounce 
a  verdict  against  her.  Early  in  1865  she  discovered 
that  she  had  got  one  of  her  victims  in  the  person  of 
Mrs.  Borradaile — a  woman  of  original  beauty,  which 
was  now  beginning  to  fade,  and  one  who  was  very 
anxious  that  she  should  be  made  "  beautiful  for  ever." 
Rachel,  being  a  woman  of  great  craft  and  very  consider- 
able mind,  brought  that  craft  and  mind  to  bear  upon 
her  victim,  and  succeeded  in  possessing  herself  of  the 
whole  of  the  money  belonging  to  the  latter.  Then  came 
a  change.  When  first  she  knew  Mrs.  Borradaile  she 
owed  half  a  year's  rent,  but  the  money  now  obtained 
not  only  enabled  her  to  pay  that  rent,  but  to  furnish  in 
-a  most  costly  manner  a  house  in  Maddox-street,  and  to 
purchase  an  opera-box  season  ticket  for  £400.  Now, 
the  jury  would  have  to  say  whether  the  name  of  Lord 
Ranelagh  had  been  used  by  Rachel  in  a  manner  and 
with  a  view  of  operating  upon  the  mind  of  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile. That  his  lordship  was  in  the  habit  of  gossiping 
on  several  occasions  in  the  shop  was  true  enough,  and 
that  on  one  of  these  he  was  introduced  by  Rachel  to 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  equally  true.  And  here  it  was  not 
undeserving  of  remark  that,  although  Miss  Rachel  said 
the  business  was  extensive  that  she  could  not  see  where 
her  mamma  took  the  money  from  to  lend  to  her  custom- 
ers, yet  both  Rachel's  daughters  were  always  kind  enough 
to  engage  in  conversation  with  Lord  Ranelagh.  True 
it  was  that  it  was  somewhat  curious  to  find  his  lordship 
in  the  shop  ;  but  there  lie  was.  The  shop  was  a  highly 
exceptional  one.  Shops  of  the  kind  had  existed  some 
centuries  ago.  They  were  places  where,  commencing 


96 

with  the  perpetration  of  moderate  frauds,  other  acts 
were  done  which  had  better  not  be  more  particularly 
mentioned  now,  except  to  add  that  the  sooner  such  dens 
were  rooted  out  of  London  the  better.  He  wished  all  the 
ladies  who  had  heard  or  read  this  case  would  learn  that 
if  once  they  crossed  the  threshold  of  such  places  they 
would  come  out  with  a  taint  upon  them.  Although  he 
did  not  impute  any  impropriety  to  Lord  Ranelagh  for 
being  introduced  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  at  the  shop,  yet 
that  introduction  ought  to  have  created  surprise  in  his 
mind,  and  if  he  had  been  prudent  he  would  not  have 
gone  there  again,  for  he  could  scarcely  fail  to  see  that 
Rachel  had  an  object  in  causing  the  introduction  to  be 
made.  There  was  no  doubt  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  was 
attracted  by  the  appearance  of  his  lordship,  and  that  she 
possessed  at  the  time  an  inordinate  idea  of  a  lord.  (A 
laugh.)  Londoners  generally  did  not  view  lords  in  quite 
so-exalted  a  manner  as  the  ladies  in  the  country  seemed 
to  do  (laughter),  and  accordingly  Mrs.  Borradaile,  being 
a  lady  fresh  from  the  country,  no  doubt  went  home 
after  her  introduction  to  Lord  Ranelagh  with  her  vanity 
particularly  gratified,  and  then  followed  the  false  pre- 
tence of  Rachel  that  his  lordship  would  marry  her,  and 
her  parting  with  her  money  and  property.  Now,  if 
Mrs.  Borradaile  had  gone  to  any  respectable  attorney 
in  the  first  instance,  he  would  have  taken  her  out  of 
Rachel's  hands.  But  was  the  use  of  talking  to  a  lady  ? 
(Laughter.)  It  was  very  easy  now  to  say  that  she 
ought  to  have  done  this  and  that ;  but  if  once  a  lady's 
mind  was  bent  upon  doing  a  certain  thing,  she  would 
do  it  in  her  own  way  and  after  her  own  fashion.  (Great 
laughter.)  Accordingly  it  was  to  Mr.  Haynes  she  went, 
an  attorney,  who  undertook  the  case  because  he 
saw  that  out  of  her  money  he  could  recoup  him- 
self in  the  matter  of  the  rent  owing  by  Kachel. 
He  (the  learned  Serjeant)  had  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that  Mr.  Haynes  was  a  man  who  was 
a  disgrace  to  his  profession — a  profession  which 
was  as  honourable  as  any  in  existence,  and  which 


97 

numbered  among  its  members  men  in  whom  more 
of  trust  and  honour  was  reposed  than  perhaps  in  any- 
other  profession  in  the  world.  The  first  transaction  in 
which  Mr.  Haynes  took  part  was  the  sale  of  £960  worth 
of  Mrs.  Borradaile's  stock,  and  then  speedily  followed 
the  sale  of  all  her  other  property.  If  he  (the  learned 
Serjeant)  possessed  the  eloquence,  and  could  employ 
the  rounded  periods  and  powerful  accents  of  his  learned 
friend,  he  would  paint  Mrs.  Borradaile  as  the  woman  of 
honour  and  of  truth  who  had  been  plundered  of  all  she 
possessed  in  the  world  by  the  prisoner  in  the  dock — a 
prisoner  who,  not  satisfied  with  her  new  house  in 
Maddox- street  and  the  opera- box  ticket  obtained  out  of 
her  money,  had  the  heartlessness  to  throw  her  into 
Whitecross-street  when  she  had  nothing  more  of  value 
of  which  she  could  be  plundered.  (Applause.)  And 
yet  the  prisoner  had  been  treated  by  his  learned  friend 
as  a  sort  of  angel  (laughter)—  as  an  ill-treated  woman 
— as  one  deserving  of  the  sympathy  of  the  jury, 
and  around  whom  they  ought  to  throw  a  halo  !  What 
had  Mrs.  Borradaile  got  for  her  £1,000  given  to  this 
angel  ?  Literally  nothing  whatever.  She  certainly  got 
what  was  called  the  soap  from  Hymettus  (laughter), 
and  the  distilled  dew-water  brought  by  the  swift 
dromedaries  from  Sahara  (great  laughter)  ;  but  not  one 
drop  of  the  water  brought  from  the  Jordan  did  she  get. 
(Eoars  of  laughter.)  Baths  she  had,  and  baths  to  the 
number  of  100  (more  laughter)  ;  but  then  the  price  of 
them  was  not  covered  by  the  £1,000,  for  it  appeared 
that  for  every  one  of  the  baths  she  had  to  pay  out  of 
her  own  pocket.  Sums  of  £1,200,  £700,  £1,400,  and 
so  on,  were  next  obtained  from  her  by  Rachel  After 
these  came  the  bond,  and  the  end  of  the  drama — White- 
cross-street  Prison.  There  was  one  point  which  would 
settle  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner  in  the  mind  of  any  hu- 
man being,  and  to  this  he  now  wished  particularly  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  jury.  It  would  be  remem- 
bm'd  that  the  letters  which  professed  to  come  from 
William  were  in  four  or  five  different  handwritings. 


98 

There  was  no  explanation  of  that  differences  offered  by 
his  learned  friend,  but  there  was  one  answer  given  on 
the  cross-examination  by  the  two  Misses  Rachel  who 
had  been  called,  the  importance  of  which  could  not  be 
exaggerated.  Much  had  been  said  by  his  learned  friend 
respecting  the  education  beauty,  and  propriety  of  man- 
ner of  these  two  young  ladies,  but  he  (Mr.  Serjeant 
Ballantine)  ventured  to  say  that  there  never  were  two 
ladies  in  the  box  who,  in  the  comparatirely  short  space 
of  time  they  were  in  it,  had  told  more  lies  than  the 
two  in  question.  He  undertook  to  state  that  not  one 
word  of  truth  had  escaped  their  lips,  except  one,  and 
that  consisted  of  an  admission,  the  effect  of  which  they 
did  not  understand,  but  which  would  be  utterly  damag- 
ing to  the  prisoner.  One  of  the  documents  produced 
was  partly  in  one  handwriting,  and  partly  in  another. 
It  proposed  to  authorize  Rachel  to  receive  £50  a  year, 
payable  quarterly,  being  the  amount  of  Mrs.  Borradaile's 
pension ;  and  the  latter  said  that  though  she  had 
written  these  words  at  the  head  of  it,  "I  authorize 
Sarah  Leverson  to  receive,"  —  the  other  words  fol- 
lowing the  word  "  receive  "—namely,  "£150  a  year 
payable  quarterly,  out  of  my  pension,"  were  not  in 
in  her  hand  writing.  The  two  Misses  Rachels  had  recog- 
nized the  £150  a  year  payable  out  of  the  pension  to  be 
in  the  handwriting  of  their  younger  sister,  who  was  now 
in  Paris.  His  learned  friend  had  asked  the  jury  if  they 
would  charge  forgery  against  that  younger  sister.  Why 
of  course  they  would  if  she  was  guilty  of  it,  and  here  there 
was  evidence  to  show  that  guilty  of  it  she  Avas.  This  ad- 
mission en  the  part  of  the  two  Misses  Rachels  led  to 
an  examination  of  the  handwriting  of  some  of  the  letters 
signed  "William," and  the  result  was  thatona  comparison 
of  writing  there  was  every  reason  to  believe  that  three  of 
the  letters  signed  "  William  "  had  been  written  by  this 
younger  sister.  If  this  were  so  then  the  prisoner  was  com- 
pletely convicted  of  getting  her  daughter  to  commitforgery 
and  Heaven  only  knew  what  other  crimes  she  made  her 
daughters  perpetrate  in  the  little  back-parlour  which 


99 

was  constantly  open  in  New  Bond-street  until  12  o'clock 
at  night.  He  would  not  attempt  to  paint  the  picture  of 
that  little  back-parlour,  when  Rachel  there  instigated 
the  forgeries  and  acted  as  the  go-between  in  the  carry- 
ing on  of  the  intrigues.  He  submitted  that  the  counsel 
for  the  defence  might,  if  they  had  chosen,  have  proved 
who  and  what  "  dear  William "  was.  It  was  an  utter 
fabrication  and  fraud,  to  say  there  was  any  such  person; 
but  if,  as  to  all  appearance,  it  was  true  Madame  Rachel 
to  excite  the  silly  fancy  of  Mrs.  Borradaile,  had  used 
the  name  of  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  had  fostered  the  idea 
of  a  marriage  with  him  in  order  that  she  might  plunder 
her  victim  of  all  that  she  possessed ;  having  done  that 
she  had  the  cruelty  to  turn  round  and  say  that  every- 
thing which  she  had  received  had  been  handed  by  her 
to  the  lady's  paramour.  The  next  question  for  the  jury 
was  how  that  packet  of  letters  got  into  the  possession 
of  Madame  Rachel ;  how  did  she  get  them  back,  when 
did  "  dear  William  "  bring  them,  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances. He  believed  that  those  letters  were  never 
out  of  the  possession  of  the  prisoner,  and  that  they  were 
safely  locked  up  in  her  cofters  until  they  were  to  be 
used  by  her  as  evidence  against  her  accuser.  He  would 
ask  them  by  their  verdict  to  crush,  before  it  became 
too  powerful,  one  of  those  engines  for  fraud  and  extor- 
tion which  unhappily  existed  at  the  present  day,  which 
terrified  persons  and  prevented  them  coming  into  courts 
of  justice — persons  who  would  sooner  submit  to  felony 
and  fraud  than  that  their  names  should  be  exposed  to 
the  public.  While  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  having  the 
money  dragged  from  her  pockets,  while  it  was  finding 
its  way  into  the  Levison  opera-box,  and  into  her  gaudily 
furnished  house  in  Maddox. street,  the  letters  were  being 
concocted  for  the  purpose  of  showing — should  the  time 
arrive  for  doing  so — that  her  victim  was  a  vile  and  stupid 
member  of  society.  This  was  what  Madame  Rachel 
intended  from  the  beginning  ;  but  he  ventured  to  say 
whatever  might  be  the  weakness  or  the  folly  of  that  lady, 
that  to  the  end  of  her  days  she  would  deserve  the  thanks 

H 


100 

of  society  for  having  been  the  means  of  exposing  so 
heinous  a  crime.  An  insinuation  had  been  made  to  the 
effect  that  Mrs.  Borradaile,  gentlewoman  that  she  was — 
for  she  was  gentle  in  birth,  manners  and  demeanour — 
was  living  at  the  time  when  those  letterswere  written  with 
a  paramour,  and  had  supported  him  till  he  had  impover- 
ished her.  He  would  ask,  who  had  dared  so  to  instruct  his 
friend — who  was  the  liar  ?  he  might  say.  He  could  now 
with  satisfaction  approach  the  termination  of  this  re- 
markable case,  and  ask  them  with  confidence  to  pro- 
nounce a  verdict  in  accordance  with  their  sense  of 
justice.  On  the  part  of  the  Crown  his  desire  had  been 
to  conduct  this  prosecution  fearlessly,  frankly,  and 
honestly,  and  if  the  jury  were  satisfied  of  the  guilt  of 
the  prisoner  he  would  ask  them  to  be  equally  fearless 
and  honest,  and  to  pronounce  such  a  verdict  as  would 
lead  them  to  feel  they  had  satisfied  the  ends  of  justice 
and  done  their  duty  to  their  country. 

The  COMMISSIONER  asked  the  jury  if  they  wished  the 
trial  to  be  concluded  that  evening. 

The  Foreman  replied  he  believed  that  to  be  the  wish 
of  his  colleagues. 

Mr.  Commissioner  KERR  then  proceeded  to  sum  up 
the  case.  He  could  not  refrain  from  saying  that  a  good 
deal  of  irrelevant  matter  had  been  introduced  into  the 
case,  and  it  was  only  fair  to  the  prisoner  that  that  matter 
should  be  swept  away  in  the  first  instance.  He  did  not 
think  any  good  would  be  done  by  calling  their  attention 
to  the  different  counts  in  the  indictment ;  the  charge 
%  substantially  was  that  the  prisoner,  by  representing  that 
a  marriage  was  about  to  be  effected  by  her  means 
between  the  prosecutrix  and  Lord  Ranelagh,  had  induced 
Mrs.  Borradaile  to  part  with  large  sums  of  money  and 
property  of  considerable  value.  Whatever  the  amount 
of  that  property,  whether  it  was  £5  or  £500,  was  no^a 
matter  for  their  consideration ;  they  must  be  satisfied 
that  by  the  representations  of  the  prisoner  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile was  induced  to  part  with  her  money,  and  that 
those  representations  were  false  and  fictitious.  Much 


101 

had  been  said  and  written  about  the  business  which  was 
carried  on  by  Madame  Rachel  in  Bond-street.  That 
they  must  altogether  exclude  from  their  mind,  and  no 
prejudice  must  be  allowed  to  weigh  with  them  in 
arriving  at  the  verdict  which,  by  their  oath,  they  were 
bound  to  pronounce.  No  doubt,  attractive  advertise- 
ments were  published,  which  led  man}  credulous  per- 
sons to  become  her  customers ;  but  with  this  they  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do.  The  Commissioner  then  pro- 
ceeded to  comment  upon  portions  of  the  correspondence, 
observing  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  comment  upon 
all  of  it,  as  for  the  purposes  of  the  defence  one  letter 
was  as  good  as  a  dozen,  and  he  specially  singled  out  the 
letter  of  September  3,  186G.  (This  was  the  letter  com- 
mencing with  the  words  "  My  own  dear  William, — If 
you  knew  what  I  have  suffered  since  Saturday  night  on 
your  account,  one  unkind  word  would  never  escape 
your  lips  to  me,"  &c.)  A  current  of  conscious  humour 
played  through  this  letter,  which  showed  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  might  really  have  known  that  she  was 
writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh,  although  she  addresssed 
"Dear  William."  There  was  a  remarkable  fact 
about  several  of  the  letters  which  it  would  be 
well  for  the  jury  to  consider.  Fortunately  he  had 
been  able  to  secure  the  services  of  Mr.  tlnder- 
Sheriff  Roche,  and  he  had  asked  that  gentleman  to  look 
at  the  water-marks  of  the  paper  on  wliicfc  the  various 
epistles  were  written.  Some  of  the  letters  were  written 
on  black-edged  paper,  and  some  were  not ;  and  it  was  a 
remarkable  coincidence  that  some  of  those  which  were 
sent  by  Airs.  Borradaile  to  "  Dear  William,"  and  by 
Madame  Rachel  to  Mrs.  Borradaile  bore  the  same  water- 
mark— namely,  Joynson,  with  the  date  1865,  1866,  or 
1867.  There  was  a  great  similarity  in  the  paper  upon 
j^kicn  others  of  the  letters  were  written,  several  of  them 
bearing  a  stamp  with  the  Prince  of  Wales's  feather  in 
the  corner.  It  would  be  for  the  jury  to  say  what  was 
the  effect  of  these  similarities  upon  their  minds,  and 
whether  they  were  satisfied  that  when  Mrs.  Borradaile 

H2 


102 

wrote  these  letters  she  was  acting  at  the  dictation  and 
under  the  influence  of  Madame  Rachel:  They  must  be 
satisfied  that  the  prosection  had  made  out  their  case 
before  they  ventured  to  return  a  verdict  of  guilty  against 
the  prisoner ;  and  if  they  entertained  any  doubt,  any 
reasonable  doubt,  it  would  be  their  duty  to  give  her  the 
benefit  of  it  and  acquit  her. 

The  jury  at  a  few  minutes  past  8  o'clock  retired  to 
consider  their  verdict,  and,  after  an  absence  of  a  quarter 
of  an  hour,  returned  into  court.  On  being  asked 
whether  they  found  the  prisoner  guilty  or  not  guilty. 

THE  FOREMAN  said  that  it  was  the  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  jury  that  she  was  Guilty. 

The  CLERK  of  the  ARRAIGNS. — And  that  is  the  opinion 
of  you  all. 

The  FOREMAN. — Yes. 

The  prisoner  then  rose  from  her  seat  and  approached 
the  edge  of  the  dock.  Addressing  the  Commissioner, 
she  said,  My  Lord, — Will  you  allow  me  to  speak  one 
word  ?  May  I  request  Mr.  Roberts  to  hand  in  the 
affidavit  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Haynes  ? 

The  COMMISSIONER  assented  and  the  document  was 
produced  by  the  solicitor  for  the  defence. 

The  Prisoner. — I  must  ask  your  Lordship  kindly  to 
read  it. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — Yes.  if  you  wish  it.  (He  read 
it  accordingly,  but  not  aloud.)  Do  you  want  me  to  read 
this  French  letter  as  well  ?  I  have  read  the  affidavit 
and  the  other  letters. 

The  Prisoner. — Will  your  Lordship  read  it  aloud. 

The  COMMISSIONER. — That  I  cannot  do. 

The  Prisoner.     It  is  a  sworn  affidavit  my  Lord. 

THE  COMMISSIONER. — That  it  may  be,  but  it  has  no 
reference  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

The  Prisoner. — He  swears,  my  Lord,  that  I  am  a  poor 
distressed  woman  in  his  evidence,  and  not  able  to  pay 
my  rent.  Now  he  swears  that  I  am  a  rich  woman. 
Then  he  swears  that  I  have  received  the  money,  but,  my 
Lord,  I  never  had  the  £500.  Her  paper  she  purchased 


103 

in  Bond-street,  where  I  purchased  mine.  There  she  is, 
ask  her.  I  have  been  defended  by  most  able  counsel, 
and  I  have  nothing  to  complain  of.  They  have  done  all 
in  their  power  for  their  client.  I  have  only  to  thank 
the  gentlemen  who  have  defended  me.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  make  any  speech  or  to  create  any  sensation,  but 
that  which  is  known  as  the  Bond-street  mystery  will 
remain  a  Bond-street  mystery  still.  Pass  the  sentence 
upon  me  if  you  please. 

The  COMMISSIONER  then  said, — The  jury  by  their 
verdict  have  found  that  you  have  obtained  from  Mrs. 
Borradaile,  by  false  pretences,  very  large  sums  of 
money.  They  have  believed  the  story,  the  theory,  that 
has  been  put  before  them  by  the  prosecution. 
They  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  upon  the  evidence 
laid  before  them,  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  first  addressed 
herself  to  you  in  May,  1866,  and  that  you,  under  the 
pretence  of  effecting  a  marriage  between  her  and  Lord 
Ranelagh,  obtained  from  her  large  sums  of  money, 
thousands  of  pounds,  together  with  jewellery,  plate, 
lace,  and  goods  of  various  kinds,  which  you  had  induced 
her  to  buy  for  her  marriage.  I  do  not  recollect  any  case 
in  which  the  obtaining  money  by  false  pretences,  at  all 
times  a  serious  crime,  has  presented  more  aggravating 
features  than  this.  This  foolish  and  misguided  woman 
trusted  herself  entirely  in  your  hands,  and  I  do  not 
think  that  the  language  of  the  prosecution,  now  that 
the  jury  have  decided  upon  the  facts,  was  at  all  uncalled 
for.  You  pillaged  her  of  everything  she  had,  you  have 
left  her  with  nothing  except  the  pension  which  her 
husband  gained.  All  the  rest  of  her  property,  I  fear,  is 
irretrievably  gone,  and  to  a  very  large  amount,  and  then 
when  she  found  herself  in  difficulties  as  to  paying  for 
the  very  goods  you  induced  her  to  buy,  you  came  down 
upon  her  mercilessly,  and  was  the  means  of  shutting  her 
up  in  prison.  I  cannot  conceive,  now  that  the  jury 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  they  have,  any 
case  of  obtaining  money  by  false  pretences  which 
is  more  aggravating  in  its  nature  than  this  one, 


104 

either  as  regards  the  length  of  time  which  the  fraud  was- 
carried  on,  the  means  by  which  it  was  effected,  or  the 
results  which  have  attended  it.  Mrs.  Borradaile,  I  say, 
intrusted  herself  to  you,  and  now  she  finds  herself  little 
better  than  a  pauper.  She  has  been  exposed  to  the 
public  gaze — I  will  not  say  to  the  public  contempt,  but 
certainly  to  public  pity.  Her  position  in  society  has 
been  destroyed  to  some  extent,  and  the  case  has  been 
described  as  "a  Bond-street  mystery."  But  there  is 
now  no  mystery  about  it — all  the  mystery  has  been 
dispelled  by  the  ordinary  exercise  of  common  sense  on 
the  part  of  the  jury,  who  have  so  patiently  listened  to 
the  evidence  as  it  proceeded.  Mrs.  Borradaile  not  only 
finds  herself  in  the  position,  I  have  mentioned,  but  her 
daughter,  who  might  have  looked  forward  to  some 
fortune,  is  entirely  dependant  upon  her  relatives. 
Every  shilling  which  should  have  come  to  her  has  gone 
into  your  hands.  First  of  all,  you  attempted  to  set  up 
a  pretence  that  you  had  in  reality  paid  this  woman 
£2,700.  The  jury  have  found  that  this  was  all  a  part  of 
the  fraud  and  untrue  ;  then  what  was  still  worse,  as  the 
jury  must  have  seen,  after  robbing  this  woman  of  all  her 
property,  you  concocted  a  scheme  to  blast  her  character 
by  saying  that  she  had  been  spending  her  money  upon 
a  paramour.  The  jury  have  negatived  that  also.  I 
certainly  shall  not  be  doing  my  duty  to  society  if  I  pay 
any  regard  to  observations  which  may  be  made  as  to 
your  position,  your  age,  or  your  family,.  I  should  be 
unworthy  to  set  here  if  I  did  not  mark  your  case  with 
some  severity.  I  must  pass  upon  you  the  whole  sentence 
of  the  law,  which  is  that  you  be  kept  in  penal  servitude 
for  five  years. 


105 


OPINIONS     OF    THE     PRESS. 


THE  TIMES. 

Our  readers  will  be  relieved  to  find  that  the  great 
E,ACHEL-and-BoRRADAiLE  case  is  at  length  over.  When 
it  was  dismissed  at  the  last  session  of  the  Central 
Criminal  Court  few  expected,  and  still  fewer,  we  fancy, 
wished,  that  it  would  really  be  renewed  this  session, 
and  up  to  the  last  moment  some  hopes  were  entertained 
that,  by  an  arrangement  of  some  kind  between  the  con- 
tending counsel,  the  original  dimensions  of  the  case 
might  be  considerably  reduced.  So  far  from  this,  how- 
ever, the  second  trial  has  occupied  more  than  twice  the 
time  occupied  by  the  first.  The  counsel  seems  to  have 
been  put  upon  their  mettle — partly,  no  doubt,  by  the 
unsatisfactory  result  of  the  last  trial,  in  which  each 
probably  thought  that  he  had  fairly  earned  the  victory, 
and  partly,  perhaps,  because  of  the  unusual  amount  of 
public  attention  which  the  case  has,  for  obvious  reasons, 
excited.  Hence  every  nerve  has  been  strained  by  both 
sides  to  make  each  the  most  of  its  own  view.  Fresh 
witnesses  have  been  produced  and  fresh  theories 
advanced,  which,  however,  had  little  more  than  their 
complete  novelty  to  recommend  them.  The  prosecution, 
for  instance,  have  discovered  that  the  "bewitchment"  of 
Mrs.  BORRADAILE  was  due,  not  entirely  to  Madame 
RACHEL'S  hocus-pocus  and  broomstick  fascination,  but 
also  to  what  the  poor  lady,  in  her  innocence,  calls 
"  whisky,"  but  what  was,  no  doubt,  some  mysterious  and 
potent  drug.  The  defence,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
made  the  scarcely  less  startling  discovery  that,  so  far 


106 

from  being  the  crafty  schemer,  the  stag%e  villain  of  the 
Bond-street  drama,  poor  Madame  EACHEL  is  the  artless 
victim,  the  unhappy  dupe.  The  wily  widow  of  50  had 
fooled  her  by  an  ingenious  story  of  intended  marriage 
with  a  cousin,  Captain  Edwardes.  Indeed,  the  counsel 
for  the  defence  so  warmed  with  his  own  eloquence  as 
he  expiated  on  this  tearful  theme  that  at  last  he  drew 
a  picture  of  his  injured  client  better  suited  to  a  ST. 
THERESA  or  a  Mrs.  FRY  than  to  a  woman  who,  by  his 
own  confession,  had  encouraged  an  intrigue  in  which 
the  wily  widow  "  squandered  her  money  on  a  para- 
mour." Such  a  picture  was  in  itself  damaging  enough 
to  the  client  from  its  intrinsic  absurdity,  but  it  did  even 
more  mischief  by  giving  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution 
just  a  shadow  of  excuse  for  a  series  of  wholly  irrelevant 
and  unfair  appeals  to  the  powerful  prejudice  against 
Madame  RACHEL'S  high  prices  and  equivocal  business — 
a  prejudice  which  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
points  at  issue  in  the  trial,  although  it  has  probably  had 
a  good  deal  to  do  with  the  verdict. 

We  call  attention  to  this  sort  of  advocacy  merely 
because  it  tends  to  introduce  into  the  case  diffi- 
culties which  give  it  an  importance  and  singularity 
which,  from  any  but  the  forensic  point  of  view,  it  can 
scarcely  be  considered  to  possess.  If  each  advocate 
must  not  only  have  an  angel  for  his  own  client,  but 
must  also  be  able  to  show  that  his  opponent's  client  is, 
if  an  angel,  one  of  quite  another  kind,  he  cannot  help 
exposing  various  points  of  attack  so  weak  that  they  fall 
to  pieces  as  soon  as  they  are  touched.  In  the  present 
case  it  seems  to  us  that,  on  the  hypothesis  maintained 
by  each  counsel,  there  are  certain  facts  for  which  it  is 
wholly  impossible  to  account.  The  forensic  contest 
becomes  a  battle  in  which  the  right  wing  of  each  army 
defeats  its  antagonist,  and  driving  it  far  from  the  field 
in  headlong  route,  naturally  claims  to  have  won  the 
victory.  But  of  course  the  outside  public  are  not 
altogether  bound  either  by  one  forensic  hypothesis  or 
the  other.  They  may  accept  just  as  much  or  as  little 


107 

of  either  as  they  please.  It  is  not  necessary  to  believe 
either,  with  the  counsel  for  the  defence,  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  is  a  monster  of  pruriency  because  she  "takes 
a  photograph  to  bed  with  her,"  or,  with  the  counsel  for 
the  prosecution,  that  she  is  so  artless  and  innocent  of 
the  ways  of  this  wicked  world  as  to  be  "bewitched" 
into  utter  helplessness  by  "what  she  calls  whisky." 
Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  need  one  impale  oneself  upon 
either  horn  of  a  dilemma  which  presents  Madame 
Rachel  as  an  intriguer  of  more  than  human  ingenuity 
or  a  wretched  dupe.  For  our  own  part,  we  must  frankly 
confess  that  although  we  have  no  doubt  whatever  that 
the  case  made  out  against  Madame  Rachel  was  not  one 
that  ought  to  have  condemned  her  in  a  court  of  law, 
we,  nevertheless,  cannot  conjure  up  any  sympathy  with 
her  now  she  is  condemned.  Whatever  may  be  the 
difference  of  opinion  about  the  prisoner's  legal  guilt, 
about  her  moral  guilt  we  take  it  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  whatever,  unless,  indeed,  the  counsel  for  the 
defence  has  really  fallen  a  victim  to  his  tearful  eloquence. 
And  as  for  Mrs.  Borradaile,  it  will  probably  be  thought 
that,  whether  she  ought  or  ought  not  to  have  won  her 
case,  she  has,  at  least,  been  so  cruelly  punished  both  in 
purse  and  person  that  the  sternest  critic  need  not  grudge 
her  whatever  of  her  reputation  the  verdict  can  restore. 
But  though  the  verdict,  considered  simply  and  solely 
in  its  action  upon  the  principal  parties  concerned  in  this 
on  the  whole  satisfactory  enough,  we  regret  to  be  obliged 
to  take  a  very  different  view  of  the  way  in  which  it  was 
obtained.  We  need  scarcely  point  out  that  the  trial  in- 
volved public  interests  of  far  greater  importance  to  the 
community  at  large  than  either  the  punishment  of 
Madame  Rachel  or  the  character  of  Mrs.  Borradaile, 
and  these  interests,  we  fear,  have  gravely  suffered. 
Though  Madame  Rachel's  conviction  will,  perhaps, 
surprise  no  one  who  knew  the  universal  prejudice  existing 
against  her,  or  who  heard  the  Commissioner's  charge  to 
the  jury,  there  can  be  few  whom  the  charge  itself  will 
not  astonish.  As  our  readers  have  by  this  time  heard 


108 

over  and  over  again,  the  strong  point  in  the  case  for  the 
defence  consists  in  the  mass  of  letters  written  confessedly 
by  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  "dear  William,"  but  which  she 
swears  she  wrote  under  the  impression  that  she  was 
writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh.  We  need  scarcely  here 
repeat  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  advanced  to 
show  how  wildly  improbable  and  untenable  this  theory 
is.  They  must  suggest  themselves  to  any  reader  who 
has  taken  sufficient  interest  in  the  case  to  read  the 
letters  for  himself.  On  no  hypothesis  whatever,  how- 
ever wild — assuming  no  matter  what  folly  in  Mrs.  Bor- 
radaile or  depraved  ingenuity  in  Madame  Rachel,  taking 
Madame  Rachel,  of  course,  as  she  stands,  an  illiterate 
shopkeeper,  not  a  witch  nor  a  miraculous  genius — can  we 
reconcile  the  letters  either  with  Mrs.  Borradaile's  belief 
that  she  was  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh  or  with  the  non- 
existence  of  a  "dear  William."  The  Recorder,  when  he 
tried  the  case  last  session,  frankly  confessed  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile's  theory  was  inexplicable  and  incredible,  and 
on  this  ground  summed  up  for  the  prisoner.  What  is 
still  more  remarkable,  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution — 
than  whom  no  more  intrepid  and  few  abler  counsel 
exist — has  deliberately  in  both  his  speeches  shrunk 
from  any  attempt  fairly  to  get  over  the  difficulty.  And 
as  Serjeant  Ballantine  is  famous  for  his  skill  in  gliding 
as  swiftly  and  lightly  as  possible  over  treacherous 
ground,  this  is  only,  we  may  remark,  what  everybody 
expected  from  him.  In  neither  of  his  two  speeches 
did  he  attempt  fairly  to  prove  that  Mrs.  Borradaiie 
wrote  the  letters  when  in  the  possession  of  her 
faculties  as  an  ordinary  human  being.  In  the  first 
speech  he  took  refuge  in  a  vague  psychological  theory, 
to  which  he  scarcely  devoted  more  than  a  paragraph  of 
a  singularly  able  speech,  about  the  ascendancy  which 
one  mind  may  acquire  over  another.  In  the  second 
feeling,  probably,  the  hopeless  feebleness  of  this  argu- 
ment, he  fell  back  in  despair  upon  the  scarcely  less 
desperate  theory  of  the  drug  which  Mrs.  Borradaile 
called  "  whisky  ;  "  and  even  this  theory  he  worked  rather 


109 

indirectly,  and  in  the  way  of  passing  appeal  to  the  anti- 
Rachel  prejudice,  than  by  boldly  putting  it  upon  its 
own  merits. 

Mr.  Commissioner  Kerr,  however,  is,  it  appears,  a 
bolder  man,  and  he  rushed  in  fearlessly  where  neither 
Serjeant  Ballantine  nor  the  Recorder  had  dared  to  tread. 
He  had  a  theory  by  which  to  show  that  Mrs.  Borradaile 
while  in  the  possession  of  her  faculties,  neither  bewitched 
nor  drugged,  might,  in  writing  these  letters,  have  fully 
believed  that  she  was  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  a 
most  astonishing  theory  it  is,  considering  that  it  comes 
from  the  bench,  and  was  the  keystone  of  a  charge  which 
left  the  jury  no  alternative  but  to  convict.  If  it  had 
come  from  an  advocate,  we  should  certainly  have  never 
dreamed  of  noticing  it.  The  Commissioner,  after  re- 
marking that  the  counsel  for  the  defence  spent  many 
hours  on  commenting  upon  all  these  letters,  declared 
that  this  time  was  wasted,  as,  for  the  purposes  of  the 
defence  "  one  letter  is  as  good  as  a  dozen."  He  then 
takes  one  letter  out  of  the  mass  and  shows — ingeniously 
enough,  we  admit — that,Mrs.  Borradaile  may  possibly 
have  addressed  it  to  "Dear  William"  under  the  belief 
that  she  was  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh.  "  A  current  of 
conscious  humour"  plays  through  it  all,  and  this  one 
hypothesis,  because  it  happens  to  be  suitable  to  this  one 
letter,  and  to  account  for  its  possible,  though  not 
probable,  character,  is  gravely  and  confidently  advanced 
as  if  it  also  accounted  for  a  mass  of  letters  of  a  totally 
dissimilar  kind.  Whatever  may  be  the  satisfactory 
features  of  the  trial,  we  fear  we  cannot  include  among 
them  the  fact  that  it  was  tried  by  Mr.  Commissioner 
Ken-. 


DAILY  TELEGRAPH. 

After  five  days  of  protracted  inquiry,  the  Rachel 
trial  has  terminated  in  the  conviction  of  the  prisoner. 
It  could  not  have  been  otherwise,  if  common  sense  and 
common  justice  were  to  be  allowed  a  hearing.  All  was 


110 

done  that  could  be  done  to  obscure  the  plain  and  simple 
issue  on  which  the  jury  had  to  decide.  Of  the  nature 
of  the  defence,  by  which  it  was  attempted  to  shield  the 
miserable  creature  now  sentenced  to  five  years'  penal 
servitude — of  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  was  got 
up — of  the  mode  in  which  that  evidence  was  commented 
on  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner,  it  will  be  our  duty  to 
speak  again.  For  the  present,  we  are  concerned  only 
with  the  question  which  the  jury  had  before  them.  Did 
Madame  Rachel  defraud  Mrs.  Borradaile  of  her  money 
by  false  pretences,  or  was  she  guilty  only  of  the  lesser 
offence  of  having  aided  an  unprincipled  woman  to  carry 
on  a  guilty  and  degrading  intrigue  ?  About  the  sub- 
stantial culpability  of  Madame  Rachel  no  reasonable 
person  could  entertain  the  slightest  doubt.  It  was 
proved,  beyond  the  possibility  of  suspicion,  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  had  parted  with  all  her  property,  with  every 
shilling  she  could  raise,  with  every  article  of  value  she 
had  in  her  possession.  It  was  admitted  on  both  sides 
that  this  property  had  all  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
purveyor  of  female  loveliness.  So  far,  therefore,  as  a 
moral  conviction  of  Rachel's  guilt  was  concerned,  it  was 
enough  to  show  that  she  was  utterly  unable  to  account 
for  the  disposal  of  the  funds  entrusted  to  her.  The  de- 
fence put  forward  on  her  behalf  at  Marlborough-street, 
and  sustained  till  the  closing  scene  of  yesterday,  was, 
that  Mrs.  Borradaile  had  had  an  intrigue  with  some  man 
called  William  ;  that,  on  this  paramour  she  had  squan- 
dered all  her  money ;  that,  in  order  to  divert  the  sus- 
picions of  her  friends,  she  had  concocted  a  baseless  story 
of  an  engagement  with  Lord  Ranelagh  ;  that  Rachel 
had  assisted  her  in  deceiving  her  relations  and  prosecut- 
ing the  intrigue  ;  and  that,  at  the  last,  Mrs.  Borradaile 
had  turned  upon  her  accomplice  and  accused  her  of 
having  purloined  the  money  squandered  on  the  secret 
lover.  It  was,  as  Serjeant  Ballantine  said,  "  a  very 
dirty  story  ;"  but  it  was  a  story  not  impossible  or  even 
improbable,  and  it  was  one  eminently  capable  of  proof. 
Had  it  been  true,  nothing  upon  earth  could  have  been 


Ill 

easier  than  for  the  prisoner  to  corroborate  it.  She  had 
been  the  go-between,  by  whom  letters  had  been  passed, 
during  a  period  extending  over  many  months,  from  the 
hands  of  William  to  those  of  his  mistress,  and  from  the 
hands  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  those  of  her  paid  adorer. 
She  had  been  the  financial  agent  who  had  conducted  the 
many  pecuniary  transactions  by  which  Mrs.  Borradaile 
had  secured  the  affections  of  her  treacherous  lover,  and, 
if  there  was  one  thing  absolutely  and  morally  certain  in 
the  whole  of  this  strange  narrative,  it  was  that,  had 
there  existed  a  William  at  all,  his  name,  position,  and 
history  must  be  within  the  knowledge  of  the  woman  who 
stood  in  the  dock. 

Yet,  with  a  tenacity  capable  only  of  one  solution, 
she  declined  to  bring  forward  the  slightest  indication 
by  which  this  man's  existence  could  be  established. 
Her  counsel  were  instructed  to  assert  positively  that 
such  a  man  existed ;  they  threw  out  insinuation  after 
insinuation  that  he  was  sometimes  one  person,  some- 
times another ;  but  they  persisted  in  refusing  to  advance 
the  very  slightest  clue  by  which  his  identity  could  be 
traced.  It  cannot  be  said  that  this  omission  was  due 
to  any  want  of  appreciation  on  the  part  either  of  the 
prisoner  or  her  legal  advisers  respecting  the  extreme 
importance  of  producing  the  alleged  paramour.  It  was 
known  that  at  the  last  trial  the  chance  of  any  informa- 
tion regarding  William  had  all  but  proved  fatal  to  her 
case.  It  was  matter  of  notoriety  that  she  owed  her 
temporary  escape  simply  and  solely  to  the  obstinacy  of 
one  of  the  jury  who  tried  her ;  and  yet,  knowing  this — 
knowing  that  a  terrible  punishment  was  her  almost  cer- 
tain doom  in  case  she  failed  to  prove  that  there  really  did 
exist  a  William — having  several  weeks  during  which 
any  necessary  inquiries  could  be  made — having  resorted 
to  any  means,  however  unscrupulous,  to  damage  the  case 
for  the  prosecution — she  still  maintained  her  unaccount- 
able silence.  What  possible  solution  is  there  for  this 
silence  except  the  simple  and  obvious  inference  that 
there  was  no  William  in  existence,  and  that,  therefore, 


112 

no  proof  could  be  adduced  as  to  his  identity  with  any 
person,  whether  dead  or  living,  at  home  or  abroad? 
But  though  this  presumptive  evidence  of  guilt  was  so 
overwhelming  as  to  amount  to  moral  certainty,  it  was 
not  absolute  legal  proof ;  and  upon  the  supposed  ab- 
sence of  clear  legal  testimony  the  whole  defencfe  was 
based.  Fortunately  for  the  ends  of  justice,  and,  we  may 
add,  for  the  interest  of  the  public,  this  attempt  to 
escape  under  a  pretence  of  "not  proven"  was  defeated 
by  the  remarkable  patience,  skill,  and  ability  with  which 
the  prosecution  was  conducted.  From  the  time  when 
Mr.  Digby  Seymour  commenced  his  harangue  by 
an  attack  upon  the  press  for  the  part  it  has  taken 
in  bringing  a  most  noxious  criminal  to  justice,  it 
was  clear  that  the  defence  had  nothing  to  rely 
upon  except  clap -trap  appeals  for  mercy,  insinuations 
that  could  not  be  established,  and  allegations  which 
could  not  be  maintained.  With  consummate  talent 
Serjeant  Ballantine  swept  away  the  irrelevant  issues 
which  had  obscured  the  case.  He  showed  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile's  narrative  was  credible  in  itself,  that  its 
apparent  improbabilities  were  explained  by  the  various 
circumstances  elicited  during  the  trial;  and  that  the 
evidence  against  the  prisoner  was  so  overwhelming  that 
in  fact,  if  not  in  theory,  the  burden  of  proof  rested  with 
the  defence,  not  with  the  prosecution. 

Still,  notwithstanding  the  skill  with  which  the  prose- 
cution was  ^managed,  there  might  well  have  been  a 
second  miscarriage  of  justice  if  the-  learned  Commis- 
sioner had  shrunk  from  the  duty  imposed  upon  him.  In 
a  case  which  is  sure  to  attract  public  comment,  a  judge 
has  always  a  great  temptation  to  avoid  the  responsibility 
of  expressing  a  distinct  opinion  on  one  side  or  the  other. 
If  the  charge  from  the  bench  on  the  occasion  of  the 
last  trial  had  been  as  clear,  as  exhaustive,  and  as  con- 
clusive as  that  which  was  enunciated  yesterday,  we 
might  have  been  spared  the  necessity  for  this  most 
painful  and  protracted  investigation.  Mr.  Commissioner 
Kerr  will  unquestionably  stand  higher  in  professional 


113 

repute  for  the  signal  ability  which  he  displayed  in  his 
summing  up  of  this  very  intricate  inquiry.  While 
giving  full  weight  to  the  arguments  which  told  in  favour 
of  an  acquittal,  he  did  not  shrink  from  pointing  out  to 
the  jury  that,  being  called  upon  to  strike  the  balance,  he 
found  it  weighed  on  the  side  of  a  conviction.  Nor  do 
we  think  it  less  to  his  credit  that  when  the  jury,  after  a 
brief  deliberation,  had  agreed  upon  the  only  verdict 
they  could  have  found  consistently  with  their  oath,  he 
had  resolution  enough  to  deal  out  strict  and  stern 
justice.  Five  years'  penal  servitude  is  a  severe  sentence 
— severe  in  itself,  still  more  severe  when  we  take  into 
account  the  age  of  the  unhappy  woman  upon  whom  it 
was  passed,  the  life  she  has  led,  the  habits  of  luxury 
she  has  formed.  From  a  box  in  the  opera  to  a  cell  in 
Millbank,  from  Bond-street  to  Pentonville,  from  enamel- 
ling complexions  to  picking  oakum  is  indeed  a  cruel 
change.  But,  severe  as  the  sentence  is,  it  is  light  com- 
pared with  the  offence  for  which  it  was  inflicted.  Never 
was  a  helpless  woman  who  fell  amongst  thieves  plun- 
dered more  pitilessly  than  Mrs.  Borradaile ;  and  very 
little  knowledge  of  the  world  is  required  to  know  that 
she  was  only  one  amongst  scores  of  other  ladies  who  have 
fallen  into  the  clutches  of  the  harpies  of  the  establish- 
ment in  Bond-street,  and  only  escaped  ruined  in  pocket, 
tarnished  in  reputation — degraded,  if  not  denied.  The 
conviction  of  this  miserable  creature,  who  trafficked  in 
the  vanity  of  women,  and  the  passions  of  men,  is  a  boon 
to  the  community  at  large.  There  are  scores  of  other 
persons,  doubtless,  who  pursue  the  same  trade  in 
London,  ply  the  same  arts,  and  live  upon  the  same  vile 
secrets.  But  this  Sarah  Levison,  late  Madame  Rachel, 
was  the  chief  offender  of  the  tribe ;  and  for  a  time  at 
least  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  the  arts  by  which  women 
are  made  "  beautiful  for  ever  "  at  the  cost  of  their  for- 
tune, their  peace  of  mind,  their  character,  and  their 
honour.. 


114 

DAILY  NEWS. 

The  jury  must  have  had  immense  difficulty  in  separat- 
ing their  disgust  at  Madame  Rachel's  calling  and  con- 
duct as  admitted  by  her  defenders,  from  the  impartial 
acumen  required  to  pronounce  upon  her  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  particular  offence  of  which  she  was  charged. 
It  is  easy  to  insist  glibly  that  there  was  no  evidence 
against  her ;  that  she  had  a  right  to  sell  her  stains,  and 
dyes,  and  potions  for  what  they  would  fetch,  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  richly  merited  her  punishment,  and  that  the 
despoiler  was  legally  guiltless.  But  the  £5,300  of  which, 
according  to  Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine,  this  hapless  widow 
had  been  defrauded,  the  assumption  that  even  if  Madame 
Rachel  did  not  pocket  the  whole  of  the  money  she  must 
have  acted  in  collusion  with  the  "William"  who  did,  and 
the  certainty  that  the  Bond-street  shop  was  the  trap  by 
means  of  which  the  foolish  bird  had  been  caught,  were 
arguments  it  was  impossible  to  overlook.  If  "William" 
were  Lord  Ranelagh,  as  Mrs.  Borradaile  declares  her- 
self to  have  believed,  then  Madame  Rachel  took  the 
money  in  his  name.  If  he  were,  Mrs.  Borradaile's 
unidentified  paramour,  to  whose  extravagance  she 
ministered,  and  for  the  sake  of  whom  she  voluntarily 
made  herself  a  beggar,  then  a  plausible  inference  was 
that  he  was  a  creature  in  the  pay  of  the  accused.  Any- 
how Madame  Rachel  was  morally  guilty,  and  the  jury 
has  found  that  she  was  legally  so.  The  twopenny 
mystery,  enveloping  the  chief  personages  in  this 
wretched  sordid  drama,  extends  to  the  subordinate 
characters  ;  and  how  it  was  that  an  elderly  nobleman 
of  varied  experience,  like  Lord  Ranelagh,  visited 
Madame  Rachel's  shop,  to  be  unconsciously  used  by 
that  harridan  as  fowlers  use  a  decoy  duck ;  how  a 
solicitor  of  the  acknowledged  standing  of  Mr.  Haynes 
ever  placed  himself  in  the  painful  position  he  has  occu- 
pied in  the  course  of  these  trials,  are,  to  say  the  least,, 
inexplicable  riddles. 


115 

MORNING  POST. 

The  defence  amounted  to  this,  that  there  was  no  pre- 
tence and  no  delusion  at  all,  nor  anything  to  do  with 
Lord  Ranelagh  in  the  matter,  and  that  Madame  Rachel 
had  in  fact  received  the  money,  not  for  procuring  a 
marriage  with  anybody  whatever,  but  for  carrying  on 
an  intrigue  between  Mrs.  Boitadaile  and  a  third  person 
not  produced.  We  think  it  impossible  —  keeping 
mysteries  out  of  sight — to  read  the  evidence  without 
coming  to  the  conclusion  at  which  the  jury  arrived, 
that  the  pretence  did  exist,  and  was  the  cause  that 
induced  Mrs.  Borradaile  to  part  with  her  money ;  and 
that  the  third  person  was  purely  fictitious,  and  the 
references  to  him  in  the  letters  inserted  advisedly  as  a 
means  of  answering  any  such  charge  as  Madame 
Rachel's  former  experience  led  her  to  suppose  might 
possibly  be  eventually  made  against  her. 


STAR. 

Not  only  is  the  argument  of  Mr.  Seymour  tremen- 
duously  hard  to  get  over,  but  each  new  perusal  of  the 
letters  renders  it  more  difficult  to  suppose  that  all  their 
natural  circumstantialities  were  inventions  of  Madame 
Rachel,  dictated  to  the  self-confessed  idiot  in  a  half- 
bemused  state.  However,  this,  though  a  very  interest- 
ing part  of  the  case,  is  only  of  collateral  interest.  Mad- 
ame Rachel's  counsel  confessed  that  she  might  have 
assisted  Mrs.  Borradaile  in  a  low  intrigue  ;  and  when  a 
woman  of  Madame  Rachel's  other  characteristics  con- 
fesses thus  much  there  is  little  need  for  anyone  to 
sympathise  with  her,  especially  under  a  conviction, 
which  she  could  easily  have  avoided,  had  she  not  been 
substantially  guilty. 


MORNING  ADVERTISER, 

The   second  prosecution  of  Madame  Rachel  has  ex- 
tended our  view  of  the  extraordinary  transactions  out 

I 


116 

of  which  it  arose,  but  we  cannot  say  that  it  has  so 
materially  added  to  its  distinctness  as  we  could  have 
wished.  Two  facts  come  clear  enough  out  of  the  evi- 
dence— the  characters,  namely,  of  the  prosecutrix  and 
the  prisoner.  There  is  no  lack  of  examples  of  the 
extent  to  which  human  folly  will  go,  or  human  iniquity. 
But  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  a  more  striking 
example  of  either  development  than  is  to  be  found  in 
Mrs.  Borradaile  on  the  one  hand,  and  Madame  Rachel 
on  the  other.  Mr.  Digby  Seymour  claimed  credit  for 
the  prisoner  for  the  exemplary  manner  in  which  she  had 
brought  up  her  children.  It  is  the  only  thing  to  her 
credit  which  has  come  out  in  the  course  of  these  pro- 
ceedings. 


EXPRESS. 

The  chief  topic  of  talk  this  morning  has  been  the 
sentence  recorded  yesterday  against  the  woman  Rachel. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  everyone  felt  glad  and 
relieved  on  taking  up  his  newspaper  to  find  that  the 
supply  of  nauseous  details  were  at  last  at  an  end.  The 
doubts  which  have  found  expression  from  time  to  time, 
as  to  precise  legal  value  of  the  evidence  establishing  the 
moral  guilt  of  the  accused,  seem  to  have  been  com- 
pletely blotted  out  by  the  prompt  verdict  and  heavy 
sentence.  It  is  not  easy  to  over-estimate  the  evil 
wrought  by  Rachel  and  her  arts.  The  folly  of  her 
dupes  and  the  amusement  derived  from  laughing  at 
their  weaknesses  are  apt  to  blind  people  to  the 
villanous  nature  of  her  calling,  and  to  lead  them  to 
gloss  over  the  dark  deeds  transacted  in  the  Bond- street 
shop.  Our  contemporaries  take  different  views  of  the 
judicial  conduct  of  Mr.  Commissioner  Kerr,  some 
thinking  that  his  impartial  summing  up  will  add  to  his 
professional  reputation,  and  others  maintaining  it  to  be 
an  unfortunate  circumstance  that  the  case  was  tried  by 
him.  But  that  Rachel  is  heavily  punished  all  are  glad. 
If  it  were  possible  to  lift  the  veil  from  the  past  career  of 


117 

this  woman,  the  charge  upon  which  she  has  just  been 
righteously  convicted,  would,  perhaps,  by  the  side  of 
other  and  worse  offences,  sink  into  comparative  insigni- 
ficance. Criminals  do  not  acquire  the  deep  cunning  and 
terrible  proficiency  in  evil  displayed  by  Rachel  without 
having  served  a  long  and  painstaking  apprenticeship. 
We  know  of  the  victim  whose  folly  and  losses  are  in 
everybody's  mouth  ;  but  how  many  other  victims  are 
there  who  have  sunk  quietly  and  unresistingly  out  of 
sight !  The  threat  of  exposure  and  the  fear  of  public 
shame  have,  we  may  rely  upon  it,  made  many  a  sufferer, 
and  all  friendless  sufferers,  silent.  The  creature  who 
"  never  told  of  ladies'  little  intrigues"  has  been  punished 
at  last ;  and  those  who  have  pushed  the  matter  to  a 
conclusion  have  rendered  a  substantial  service  to  the 
community. 


PALL  MALL  GAZETTE. 

The  trial  of  Madame  Rachel  was  brought  a  close  last 
night.  Serjeant  Ballantine,  in  replying  upon  the  whole 
case,  said  that  the  only  defence  set  up  was  that  Mrs. 
Borradaile  had  had  an  intrigue  with  some  man  named 
William,  and  that  to  that  intrigue  Madame  Rachel  was 
a  party ;  but,  if  that  was  the  case,  the  counsel  for  the 
defence  might,  if  they  had  chosen,  have  proved  who 
and  what  "  Dear  William  "  was.  It  was  an  utter  fabri- 
cation and  fraud  to  say  there  was  any  such  person,  but 
if,  as  to  all  appearance,  it  was  true  Madame  Rachel,  to 
excite  the  silly  fancy  of  Mrs.  Borradaile,  had  used  the 
name  of  Lord  Ranelagh,  and  had  fostered  the  idea  of  a 
marriage  with  him  in  order  that  she  might  plunder  her 
victim  of  all  that  she  possessed ;  having  done  that,  she 
had  the  cruelty  to  turn  round  and  say  that  everything 
which  she  had  received  had  been  handed  by  her  to  the 
lady's  paramour.  While  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  having 
the  money  dragged  from  her  pockets,  while  it  was  find- 
ing its  way  Into  the  Levison  opera-box,  and  into  her 
gaudily-furnished  house  in  Maddox-strcet,  the  letters 

i2 


118 

were  being  concocted  for  the  purpose  of  showing — 
should  the  time  arrive  for  doing  so — that  her  victim  was 
a  stupid  and  vile  member  of  society.  This  was  what 
Madame  Rachel  intended  from  the  beginning ;  but  he 
ventured  to  say,  whatever  might  be  the  weakness  or 
the  folly  of  Mrs.  Borradaile,  that  to  the  end  of  her  days 
she  would  deserve  the  thanks  of  society  for  having  been 
the  means  of  exposing  so  heinous  a  crime.  Mr.  Com- 
missioner Kerr,  in  his  summing  up,  commented  upon 
portions  of  the  correspondence,  observing  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  comment  upon  all  of  it,  as  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  defence  one  letter  was  as  good  as  a  dozen, 
and  he  specially  singled  out  a  letter  dated  Sept.  3,  1866. 
A  current  of  conscious  humour  played  through  this 
letter,  which  showed  that  Mrs.  Borradaile  might  really 
have  known  that  she  was  writing  to  Lord  Ranelagh, 
although  she  addressed  "  Dear  William."  There  was  a 
remarkable  fact  about  several  of  the  letters  which  it 
would  be  well  for  the  jury  to  consider.  Some  of  the 
letters  were  written  on  black- edged  paper,  and  some 
were  not ;  and  it  was  a  remarkable  coincidence  that 
some  of  those  which  were  sent  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  to 
"  Dear  William "  and  by  Madame  Rachel  to  Mrs. 
Borradaile  bore  the  same  water  mark— namely,  Joynson, 
with  the  date  1865,  1866,  or  1867.  There  was  a  great 
similarity  in  the  paper  upon  which  others  of  the  letters 
were  written,  several  of  them  bearing  a  stamp  with  the 
Prince  of  Wales's  feather  in  the  corner.  It  would  be 
for  the  jury  to  say  what  was  the  effect  of  these  similari- 
ties upon  their  minds,  and  whether  they  were  satisfied 
that  when  Mrs.  Borradaile  wrote  these  letters  she  was 
acting  at  the  dictation  and  under  the  influence  of 
Madame  Rachel.  The  jury,  after  a  quarter  of  an  hour's 
deliberation,  returned  a  verdict  of  guilty.  Mr.  Com- 
missioner Kerr,  in  passing  sentence,  said  that  he  could 
not  recollect  a  more  aggravated  case,  not  only  with 
regard  to  the  offence  itself,  but  to  the  means  with  which 
it  was  accomplished.  The  jury  had  confirmed  the  view 
of  the  case  that  was  taken  by  the  prosecution,  that  the 


119 

prisoner  having  deprived  the  prosecutrix  of  all  her  pro- 
perty, had  then  contrived  a  scheme  to  answer  any  claim 
that  she  might  make  upon  her,  that  scheme  being  an 
attempt  to  blast  her  character  and  ruin  her  for  ever 
in  the  estimation  not  only  of  her  own  friends,  but  of 
all  the  world.  The  jury  had  found  that  there  was  no 
foundation  for  this  defence,  but  the  prosecutrix  would, 
no  doubt,  for  a  very  long  time,  be  pointed  at  as  the 
heroine  of  the  Bond-street  mystery.  The  case  really 
did  not  come  within  the  description  of  a  mystery,  and, 
in  point  of  fact,  it  was  a  very  simple  case  when  it  was 
looked  at  by  men  of  the  world.  It  was  a  very  bad  case 
indeed,  and  the  result  of  the  prisoner's  conduct  had 
been  to  deprive  the  daughter  of  the  prosecutrix  of  the 
fortune  to  which  she  would  have  been  entitled,  and 
made  her  dependent  on  her  family.  Under  these  circum- 
stances he  felt  that  he  should  not  be  doing  his  duty  if 
he  did  not  pass  upon  her  the  full  sentence  of  the  law, 
which  was,  that  she  be  kept  in  penal  servitude  for  five 
years.  The  prisoner  fainted  on  hearing  the  sentence. 


SATURDAY  REVIEW. 

Except  in  the  way  of  an  advertisement  for  Mrs.  Levi- 
son's  beauty  factory,  one  can  hardly  see  what  is  the  exact 
object  of  the  trial  which  has  in  its  way  amused  news- 
paper readers  during  the  present  week.  As  it  drags  its 
weary  length  along  there  arises  the  suspicion  that  the 
Jewish  purveyor  of  female  charms  may  subside  into 
something  of  the  dignity  of  a  martyr.  Martyrdom  is,  in 
these  days,  a  good  investment ;  the  sufferings  even  of  a 
victim  of  the  Central  Criminal  Court  and  the  Assizes 
pay.  We  almost  begin  to  suspect  that  Mrs.  Levison 
understands  this,  and  has  it  has  come  out  that  the  pro- 
secution is  not  conducted  at  Mrs.  Borradaile's  instance, 
it  becomes  a  matter  of  some  little  interest  to  speculate 
who  can  benefit  by  it — always  excepting  the  professionals 
engaged — except  Levison  herself.  On  the  strength  of 
the  notoriety  which  she  has  attained,  Mrs.  Levison  has 


120 

beautified  her  shop,  and  the  value  of  the  paint  and  var- 
nish which  she  bestows  on  her  patients  may  be  estimated 
by  its  effects  on  her  shutters.  Possibly  she  has  been  to- 
some  extent  reimbursed  for  her  sufferings  in  Newgate 
by  the  abundant  flow  of  customers  in  Bond- street ;  and 
the  miscarriage  of  justice  in  the  first  trial,  when  she 
ought  certainly  to  have  been  acquitted,  is  likely  to  pro- 
duce what  it  is  the  fashion  to  call  an  ovation  in  her 
favor,  when,  not  without  triumph,  she  will  escape  from 
her  recent  familiarity  with  the  gaol,  and  her  interviews 
with  irrepressible  Mr.  Serjeant  Ballantine. 

The  second  trial  has  not  done  very  much  to  improve 
on  the  tediousness  of  the  first.  A  twice-told  tale  is 
proverbially  tedious,  and  there  are  jokes  which  do  not 
bear  repetition.  A  longer  and  more  tiresome  pleasantry 
than  Mrs.  Borradaile's  account  of  her  intercourse  with 
Mrs.  Levison  it  would  be  impossible  to  conceive.  The 
widow  Borradaile's  story  that  she  was  induced  to  part 
with  all  her  property,  to  run  into  debt,  to  take  up 
her  abode  in  the  most  questionable  of  quarters,  to 
incur  disgrace,  contumely,  and  prison  on  the  repre- 
sentation that  she  was  to  marry  an  Irish  peer  who 
had  fallen  in  love  with  her,  is  confronted  by  a  his- 
tory which  hangs  well  together,  and  is  supported 
in  every  particular  by  the  evidence  of  her  own 
handwriting  and  acknowledged  letters.  Mrs.  Borra- 
daile's story  is  pmmd  facie  of  the  wildest  improbability, 
and  it  happens  to  be  supported  by  no  facts  at  all.  It 
rests  simply  on  her  own  unsupported  oral  evidence. 
Mrs.  Levison's  story,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  at  all 
antecedently  improbable,  perhaps  not  so  very  uncommon ; 
it  hangs  with  close  cohesion  together,  and  it  is  supported 
by  very  strong  evidence  in  Mrs.  Borradaile's  own  letters, 
preserved  in  an  historical  series,  and  primd  facie  con- 
necting and  forming  a  perfectly  consistent  and  intelli- 
gible history.  As  detailed  in  the  letters — and  this  is 
Levison's  case — Mrs.  Borradaile  had  formed  a  disgrace- 
ful liaison  with  an  unknown  person  addressed  as  William, 
who,  it  is  suggested,  but  does  not  appear,  was  a  Fenian 


121 

adventurer,  who  had  some  relations  with  the  notorious 
head  centre  Stephens.  On  this  wretched  adventurer— 
a  penniless,  shirtless,  flannelless,  sockless  vagabond — 
Mrs.  Borradaile  (such  is  the  theory)  lavished  all  her 
substance  ;  got  into  debt  and  difficulties  for  him  ;  exhi- 
bited, and  as  it  seems  not  without  cause,  the  usual 
jealousy  which  an  old  woman  usually  has  to  feel  for  a 
young  lover — paramour,  as  the  confidante  calls  him. 
The  ardent  letters  produced  as  Mrs.  Borradaile's  contain 
the  most  unmistakeable  references  to  the  actual  disgrace 
of  this  connexion.  In  a  way  the  senescent  Sappho 
seems  to  feel  it,  and  after  a  fashion  to  deplore  it.  But 
the  guilty  passion  is  too  strong  for  her ;  it  generally  is  in 
such  cases.  She  persistently  requires  that  the  young 
and  purchased  lover  should  take  her  abroad.  He,  as 
would  be  likely  enough,  prefers  to  be  petted  and 
subsidised,  and  to  retain  his  liberty.  The  old  woman 
tries  alternate  threats  and  coaxings  to  secure  "her 
friend  ";  the  friend  contrives  to  be  opportunely  sick 
or  sorry  just  as  every  arrangement  for  the  happy  future  is 
made  by  the  lady.  When  a  woman,  especially  an  old 
woman,  keeps  a  man,  especially  a  young  man,  this  is  what 
is  most  likely  to  be  the  history  of  the  amour.  If  Mrs. 
Borradaile's  letters  do  not  contain  a  story  (there  is  no  ro- 
mance, except  the  very  ugly  romance  of  a  vulgar  and  dis- 
gusting chapter  of  sin  and  shame)  which  on  the  face  of  it 
shows  real  life,  we  must  say  that  never  perhaps  was  a  fic- 
titious narrative  composed  with  so  many  inherent  evi- 
dences oivraisemblame,  and  also  so  many  chance  touches 
of  truth,  about  it.  To  have  invented  all  the  details  of 
these  letters  of  Mrs.  Borradaile  would  have  done 
credit  to  any  fictionist.  We  much  question  whether 
many  French  writers  of  slippery  and  scrofulous  novels 
have  the  skill  to  do  it. 

But  then  there  is  Mrs.  Borradaile's  allegation  that, 
even  if  she  wrote  them,  she  is  not  responsible  for  their 
contents.  Although  it  is  not  very  distinctly  that  she 
admits  the  authenticity  of  this  wonderful  series  of 
anatomy  epistles,  she  does  not  venture  distinctly  to 


122 

swear  that  they  are  forgeries.  Hints  were  thrown  out 
that  their  authenticity  would  be  contested,  or  rather  the 
authenticity  of  some  of  them.  But,  as  a  whole  they 
pass  without  much  attempt  at  denying  them.  Indeed, 
there  is  a  raison  d'etre  adduced  for  them.  They  were 
possibly,  probably  in  Mrs.  Borradaile's  handwriting; 
but  then  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth  in  them.  They 
were  all  dictated  by  Mrs.  Levison.  In  writing  them  out 
Mrs.  Borradaile  was  merely  an  instrument,  and  quite 
passive  in  the  astute  Levison's  hands.  Levison  con- 
cocted the  story ;  Levison  invented  the  details.  Plot 
and  colouring  were  alike  Levison's.  If  this  is  so,  we 
can  only  say  that  Madame  Rachel  Levison  has,  after  all 
missed  her  vocation.  She  deserves,  in  that  case,  to  take 
very  high  rank  among  the  female  geniuses  of  the  day. 
Miss  Braddon  and  that  remarkable  authoress  whose 
offensive  novel,  Sorrow  on  the  Sea,  has,  very  much  to 
the  publisher's  credit,  just  been  suppressed  by  him,  had 
better  look  to  their  laurels,  or  their  nightshade,  or  what- 
ever the  chaplet  is  which  crowns  the  brows  of  the  female 
writer  of  the  sensation  story,  or  the  nasty  story.  For 
here  is  sensation  and  plot  quite  as  thrilling  as  Lady 
Audley's  Secret,  with  situations  and  morals  nearly  as 
offensive  as  those  which  the  purveyors,  foreign  and 
domestic,  of  fornicating  literature  commonly  venture 
upon.  Mrs.  Levison,  we  are  asked  to  believe,  could 
invent  this  plot,  and  is  master  of  this  language  ;  and  yet 
Mrs.  Levison  cannot  write,  and  probably  can  hardly 
read.  But,  given  that  Mrs.  Levison  possesses  this 
literary  genius — which  might  have  made  that  fortume 
in  depicting  putrescent  characters  which  she  has,  as  it 
seems,  failed  to  do  in  repairing  damaged  charms—  the 
question  remains,  what  was  to  come  of  all  this  lavish 
expenditure  of  talent  in  faction  ?  What  could  Mrs. 
Levison  gain  by  representing  on  paper  Mrs.  Borradaile 
as  carrying  on  a  guilty  intrigue  with  a  non-existent 
"  Dear  William,"  who,  for  no  purpose  whatever, 
was  only  imagined  to  be  without  a  shirt  to  his 
back,  and  an  accomplice  in  the  Fenian  conspiracy  ? 


123 

If,  as  Mrs.  Borradaile  says,  Levison's  only  object  was  to 
get  her  money,  this  was  the  most  tortuous  and  unintelli- 
gibly stupid  way  of  getting  at  it.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  why  should  Mrs.  Borradaile  submit  to  the  indig- 
nity of  writing  herself  down,  not  an  ass,  but  another 
monosyllable  of  which,  as  one  of  her  letters  shows,  she 
knew  the  force  ?  To  get  Lord  Kanelagh  for  a  husband 
might  possibly  be  admitted  as  a  conceivable  object  of 
ambition  to  one  woman  in  a  million  ;  but  that  this  series 
of  dirty  letters  could  be  a  means  towards  that  very 
questionable  end  is  simply  inconceivable.  To  this  Mrs. 
Borradaile's  answer,  which  she  dwelt  on  during  the  first 
trial,  was  that  Levison  bewitched  her ;  that  she  did  not 
know  what  she  was  about ;  that  she  acted  only  as  in  a 
dream,  or  trance.  The  case  then  reverts  to  the  psycho- 
logical inquirer — to  what  is  called  the  mad  doctor — and 
to  him  only  is  the  case  interesting.  Very  interesting 
indeed  such  a  study  must  be  to  the  experts  in  so-called 
possession  and  magnetic  influences,  but  to  no  other 
human  being.  For  all  purposes  of  vulgar  law  and 
commonplace  justice,  Mrs.  Borradaile's  presence  at  the 
Old  Bailey  is  as  useless  as  that  of  Tom  o'-Bedlam.  And 
here  the  matter  must  end.  Mrs.  Borradaile's  account 
of  the  existence  of  her  own  letters  is  either  so  stupen- 
dously false  or  so  ridicuously  absurd  that  her  evidence 
is  utterly  worthless.  No  conviction  can,  or  ought  to  be, 
grounded  upon  it. 

On  the  other  hand — this  expression,  by  the  way,  is 
quite  irrelevant,  for  the  question  has  not  two  sides  at 
all — Mrs.  Levison  does  not  account  for  her  being  mixed 
up  with  Mrs.  Borradaile's  concerns,  or  amours,  or 
money-matters.  But  Mrs.  Levison  is  not  called  upon 
to  say  what  her  relations  with  Mrs.  Borradaile  were. 
Her  business  transactions  and  her  sale  of  the  magnetic 
water  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  specific  charge  on 
which  she  is  tried.  That  charge  is  that  she  got  hold  of 
Mrs.  Borradaile's  property  by  reason  of  a  special  and 
single  false  representation.  Such  false  representation 
is  not  proved  ;  and  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  to  say 


124 

that  she  had  some  other  purpose  equally  bad,  and  made 
some  other  representation  equally  false.  The  man  is 
charged  with  murder  ;  he  is  not  to  be  hanged  because 
it  is  vehemently  suspected,  indeed  well  known,  that  he 
stole  a  horse.  That  is  what  the  Irish  jury  is  said  to 
have  thought ;  and  it  is  on  something  of  this  view  of 
justice  that  the  late  London  jury,  or  at  least  the  majority 
of  them,  were  disposed  to  act  a  few  weeks  ago.  Mrs. 
Levison,  however,  while  she  denies  that  especial  con- 
nection with  Mrs.  Borradaile's  private  affairs  for  which 
she  is  criminally  indicted,  will  not  of  course  explain  her 
real  motives  for  interference.  If,  taking  her  version  of 
the  matter,  Mrs.  Borradaile  was  spending  her  substance 
in  a  profligate  liaison,  why  was  Mrs.  Levison  privy  to 
it  ? — why  did  she  advance  money  to  carry  it  on  ? — how 
and  why  did  she  become  possessed  of  the  love  letters  ? 
What  has  become  of  the  plate  and  the  trosseau,  the  lace, 
and  sundry  other  pickings  which  passed  through  her 
hands  ?  Why  did  she  introduce  that  remarkable  man 
of  law,  Mr.  Haynes,  on  the  scene  ?  What  about  all 
the  actions  and  counter-actions,  the  suing  and  being 
sued,  the  suggested  danger  of  transportation,  and  all  the 
rest  of  it,  which  will  remain  unexplained  because  it  is 
nobody's  business  to  explain  it  ?  Above  all,  if  Mrs. 
Borradaile  does  not  prosecute  this  indictment,  who  does, 
and  who  is  to  be  benefitted  by  it  ?  Or  is  it,  after  all,  as 
we  have  already  suggested,  only  a  very  long  and  well 
considered  advertisement  of  beautiful  for  ever  ?  Mrs. 
Levison  boasts,  in  reference  to  a  trial  in  which  she 
figured  some  years  ago,  that  "  the  act  of  ingratitude  "  of 
the  gentleman  who  refused  to  pay  for  his  wife's  invest- 
ment in  the  Rachel  wares  "  has  been  amply  compensated 
for  by  the  generosity  of  others."  That  is  to  say,  she 
made  a  good  thing  by  that  trial ;  and  we  are  rather 
afraid  that  the  only  result  of  the  affaire  Borradaile  will 
be  the  doubling  of  Madame  Rachel's  "fees." 


125 
SECOND  NOTICE. 

<r  

DAILY  TELEGRAPH. 

British  justice — so  Mr.  Digby  Seymour  declared,  in 
one  of  the  loud  appeals  with  which  his  sensation  speech 
in  the  Rachel  case  was  interlarded — was  at  stake  in  the 
issue  before  the  jury.  No  doubt  the  cause  of  justice  is 
at  stake  whenever  a  pickpocket  is  tried  for  stealing  a 
handkerchief,  or  a  street  drab  is  fined  for  being  drunk 
and  disorderly.  Taken  in  this  plain  sense,  Mr.  Seymour's 
statement  is  the  tritest  of  truisms;  taken  in  any  other,  it  is 
a  simple  piece  of  ineffective  rhodomontade.  The  trial  was 
remarkable  chiefly  because  it  was  dragged  out  for  five 
days,  and  because  the  prisoner's  counsel  contrived  to 
declaim  for  eight  weary  hours.  There  were  circum- 
stances which  attracted  a  great  amount  of  public  in- 
terest ;  but,  from  the  legal  and  professional  point  of 
view,  the  case  was  eminently  common-place.  We  must 
protest  against  the  attempt  to  exalt  so  miserable  an 
affair  to  the  dignity  of  a  State  trial.  Language  which 
would  have  been  high-flown  and  bombastic  if  the  counsel 
had  been  pleading  before  the  House  of  Lords,  on  the 
impeachment  of  a  royal  personage,  was  applied  to  the 
issue  whether  a  wretched  woman  had  or  had  not  con- 
trived to  steer  clear  of  the  law  in  one  particular  trans- 
action of  an  infamous  career.  Nevertheless,  though 
British  justice  is  likely  to  survive  so  ineffable  a  calamity 
as  Mr.  Seymour's  loss  of  his  cause,  there  are  certain 
incidents  in  the  defence  of  the  prisoner  which,  in  the 
interest  of  justice,  cannot  well  be  left  unnoticed.  From 
the  commencement  of  the  proceedings  it  was  determined 
to  rest  the  defence  upon  a  purely  negative  basis.  This 
course  was  prompted  by  such  a  knowledge  of  the  facts 
as  only  the  legal  advisers  of  the  prisoner  could  possess; 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  expediency  of  their 
decision.  A  prisoner  is  not  bound  to  offer  any  expla- 
nation of  circumstances  which  seem  to  establish  his 
guilt,  and  he  may  fairly  take  refuge  in  the  plea  that  the 
presumption  of  guilt  does  not  amount  to  proof.  But  Mr. 


126 

Seymour  having  elected  to  stand  upon  the  defensive, 
endeavoured  to  obtain  for  his  client  the  advantage  of  a 
contrary  policy.  He  declined  to  produce  "  William  "  in 
court ;  he  refused  to  bring  forward  one  tittle  of  evidence 
to  show  that  such  a  person  had  ever  existed  ;  and  yet 
he  assured  the  jury  that  there  was  a  "  William."  The 
inevitable  result,  if  not  the  obvious  purpose,  of  these  as- 
surances was  to  convey  an  impression  to  the  jury  that 
Mr.  Digby  Seymour  knew  who  "William"  was  ;  though 
for  some  unintelligible  reasons,  his  client  could  not  bring 
him  into  court.  Now  either  Mr.  Seymour  was  speaking 
from  book  or  not.  Either  he  was  commenting  on  facts 
which  were  not  and  could  not  be  know^to  the  jury  ;  or 
he  was  using  language  calculated  to  create  an  erroneous 
impression  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  In  either  case 
he  exceeded  the  fair  licence  of  an  advocate. 

Another  important  question  must  be  asked  with  res- 
pect to  the  mode  of  defence.  Was  the  attempt  to 
impugn  the  lad  Minton's  evidence  in  accordance  with 
the  usual  rules  by  which  British  justice  is  administered? 
Mr.  Seymour  endeavoured  toexplain  away  that  singularly 
unpleasant  transaction  by  a  mass  of  sonorous  verbiage,  the 
plain  English  of  which  appeared  to  be,  that  in  law  you 
must  not  stick  at  trifles.  It  may  be  so,  but,  in  that 
case,  the  professional  idea  of  a  trifle  must  be  very  diff- 
erent from  the  common  estimate  of  ordinary  morality. 
At  the  examination  before  Mr.  Knox,  the  boy  Minton 
gave  evidence  which  was  damaging  to  Madame  Rachel's 
case.  The  solicitor  for  the  defence  then  endeavoured 
to  obtain  information  which  might  invalidate  his  testi- 
mony. A  detective  was  engaged  on  the  job.  Going  to 
Minton's  home  the  man  trumped  up  a  story  that  he 
could  get  the  lad  a  good  situation,  and  persuaded 
Minton's  own  mother  to  show  him  a  specimen  of  the 
lad's  hand  writing.  Getting  hold  in  this  way  of  a 
pocket-book  which  contained  certain  entries  respecting 
the  evidence  given  in  court,  he  tore  out  the  leaves  on 
which  these  entries  were  made,  and  went  away  without 
leaving  an  address.  The  memoranda  thus  obtained 


127 

by  fraud  were  handed  to  the  detective's  employer ;  the 
solicitor  gave  them  to  Mr.  Seymour ;  and  the  counsel 
did  not  hesitate  to  use  notes  which  had  been  got  by 
fraudulent  means  from  the  boy's  own  mother,  to  sup- 
port the  assumption  that  the  lad  had  committed  wilful 
and  deliberate  perjury.  Mr.  Roberts  stated  on  oath 
that  the  ruse — to  use  the  singularly  mild  term  by  which 
Mr.  Seymour  described  the  transaction— was  concocted 
by  the  detective  without  his  own  knowledge ;  and  we 
cannot  suppose  that,  before  the  facts  were  disclosed  in 
court,  Mr.  Seymour  knew  how  the  memoranda  had 
been  obtained.  Yet  we  cannot  acquit  him  of  grave  in- 
discretion. After  a  night's  reflection  he  attempted  to 
justify  the  transaction,  and  asserted  that  he  was  equally 
responsible  with  the  solicitor.  Do  we  err  in  believing 
that  some  solicitors  would  decline  to  get  up  evidence  in 
such  a  fashion,  and  that  some  counsel  would  decline  to 
use  it  when  so  obtained  ? 

When  you  have  no  case,  abuse  the  plaintiffs  attorney. 
This  used  to  be  one  of  the  traditional  maxims  of  the 
Old  Bailey ;  and  the  modern  translation  of  the  rule 
appears  to  be,  When  you  have  no  case,  abuse  the  press. 
Whenever  Mr.  Seymour  was  at  fault  for  matter  to  spin 
out  his  eight  hours'  oration — when  he  was  not  ex- 
patiating on  the  depravity  of  the  witnesses  who  sup- 
ported the  prosecution,  appealing  to  the  immut- 
able principles  of  eternal  justice,  dilating  on  the 
domestic  virtues  of  his  injured  client,  or  singing  the 
praises  of  his  own  rectitude,  fearlessness,  and  independ- 
ence— he  attacked  the  press.  At  the  commencement 
of  his  speech  he  besought  the  jury  to  fall  upon  their 
knees  and  implore  the  assistance  of  heaven,  in  order 
that  they  might  be  enabled  to  resist  the  pernicious 
influence  of  certain  criticism  which  had  been  made  in 
our  own  columns  and  those  of  our  contemporaries  ;  and 
he  had  the  audacity  to  assert,  that  but  for  the  prejudice 
which  the  press  had  created  against  his  client,  the 
prosecution  would  never  have  been  sustained.  With 
characteristic  recklessness  he  first  denounced  the  news- 


128 

papers  for  commenting  on  the  case  at  all,  and  then 
quoted  at  length  from  an  article  of  a  journal  which  has 
distinguished  itself  by  its  hostility  to  the  prosecution. 
In  reality,  our  offence  in  Mr.  Seymour's  eyes  is,  not  that 
we  commented  on  the  trial,  but  that  we  commented  on 
it  fearlessly.  If  we  had  adopted  the  tone  of  most  our 
contemporaries — if  we  had  said  that  there  was  nothing 
to  choose  between  prosecutrix  and  defendant ;  if  we 
had  thrown  cold  water  on  the  attempt  to  bring  the 
offender  to  justice  ;  if  we  had  ignored  the  grave  public 
interest  involved  in  the  question  whether  Rachel  should 
be  allowed  to  pursue  her  vile  trade  unpunished  and  un- 
molested—then we  should  have  had  the  advantage  of 
Mr.  Digby  Seymour's  approbation.  Because  we  pur- 
sued a  contrary  course— because  we  insisted  that 
the  subject  must  be  thoroughly  sifted  that  the  prosecu- 
tion must  be  continued  until  the  truth  of  the  charge 
should  be  proved  or  disproved— our  self-constituted 
censor  charges  us  with  such  an  outrage  upon  justice 
that  its  baleful  influence  could  be  diverted  only  by 
Divine  interposition.  We  are  quite  content  to  let  the 
public  decide  between  us  and  the  advocates  of  Madame 
Rachel.  From  the  beginning  we  have  endeavoured  to 
present  to  tfoe  public  faithful  reports  of  the  evidence ; 
while  we  have  sought  to  point  out  the  salient  features 
of  the  case  on  the  one  side  as  well  as  on  the  other. 
The  forensic  complaint  respecting  the  criticism  of  the 
press  is  becoming  wearisome  ;  and,  as  the  public  know,  it 
is  intended  solely  to  divert  attention  from  the  weakness 
of  the  complainant's  position.  When  a  cause  is  con- 
ducted in  such  a  fashion  that  there  is  nothing  to  hide, 
nothing  to  keep  back,  not  a  word  is  said  about  the  un- 
fairness of  newspaper  comment.  We  do  not  need  to 
be  taught  our  responsibilities.  We  know  that  one  of 
the  first  of  those  responsibilities  is  to  uphold  the 
character  of  justice.  We  have  to  see  that  in  courts  of 
justice  invective  does  not  supply  the  place  of  solid 
argument ;  and  we  should  have  failed  in  our  duty  had 
we  commented  with  less  freedom  and  emphasis  on  the 
trial  which  has  closed  the  Bond-street  Mystery. 


129 

To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  TIMES. 

Sir, — Will  you  allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to,  and 
to  protest  in  your  columns  against,  the  course  taken  by 
Mr.  Commissioner  Kerr  in  avowedly  adopting  a  sug- 
gestion of  Mr.  Under-Sheriff  Eoche  that  some  of  the 
letters  written  by  Mrs.  Borradaile  bore  the  same  water- 
mark as  some  of  those  purporting  to  come  from 
-William." 

The  learned  Commissioner  during  the  long  trial  never 
once  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Digby  Seymour  to  this 
matter,  but  seems  to  have  kept  it  as  a  surprise  for  the 
jury  m  his  charge  to  them. 

To  show  the  utter  fallacy  of  the  argument  deduced 
from  the  resemblance,  I  have  to-day  been  in  several 
offices,  and  have  found  the  same  watermark,  "  Joynson, 
1865,"  and  "  1867  "  on  various  specimens  of  note-paper, 
and  you  will  see  that  the  paper  on  which  I  am  writing, 
<ind  which  bears  the  printed  address  for  use  in  my  office, 
has  the  name  (in  the  watermark)  of  the  same  eminent 
maker. 

Is  it  not  a  startling  thing  that  this  "mare's  nest" 
discovery  of  the  Under-Sheriff' s  should  be  solemnly  put 
to  the  jury  as  evidence  of  the  forgery  of  the  letters  in 
question,  and  that  those  letters  should  be  specially 
selected  and  handed  to  the  jury  to  be  examined  by  them 
on  this  point  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  mass  of  the 
other  letters  and  documents  put  in  during  the  course  of 
the  trial,  and  that  this  casual  coincidence  of  a  water- 
mark in  note-paper  should  be  deemed  conclusive  of  the 
unhappy  prisoner's  guilt  ? 

I  am  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  H.  EGBERTS. 
46,  Moorgate-street,  London,  E.C.,  Sept.,  26. 


To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  TIMES. 

Sir, — Sincerely  do  I  trust  that  there  is  nothing  in 
Mr.  Commissioner  KBIT'S  watermark  argument ;  for 
on  lifting  up  three  sheets  of  apparently  different  paper 


130 

lying  in  my  blotting-book  just  now,  imagine  my  horror 
to  find  them  all  marked  "  Joynson,  1865." 

Temple.  Yours  truly  W. 


To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  TIMES. 

Sir. — Mr.  Commissioner  Kerr  made  a  great  deal  in 
his  extraordinary  charge  to  the  jury  of  the  fact  that  a 
few  of  the  letters  to  and  from  the  mysterious  "  William" 
bear  the  same  watermark,  that  of  "  Joynson,  1867." 

The  jury  were  evidently  affected  by  this  startling 
discovery. 

I  write  this  note,  as  you  perceive,  on  my  private 
crested  paper,  and  the  watermark  is  also  "Joynson, 
1867."  So  much  for  the  learned  Commissioner's  argu- 
ment. 

Your  obedient  servant 

Temple,  Sept.,  26.  ONE  WHO  WAS  PRESENT.